The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-11-07
dict and for an attorneys fec. The
Slipreine Court affirmed this Judgnent.

Supreme Court affirmed tits Judgment.
Ks now In order to notice ~ cases
~ which the Supreme Court mas re-
being in restraint q trade under tho
was United States vs.. d. c, Knight
COMPANY, 15e u. S. r., /. In that case -,
tnere was n combination OF nearly ~
tho manufacturers Of sugar IN the
United States for tho purpose OF manu-
Iactqring nearly all the sugar used IN
IN. .,n united States as one manufacturer
rntner than as a number OF manu nc
tmrers. and 1t was claimed that tbs
was an agreement to monopolze the
interstate trade and commerce In sugar
n u to restrain the Interstate trade IN
tnat article. and the court was asked
20 dissolve the combination as , one
condemned by the ANTITRUST act: The
supreme Court refused to do H. ~
drew a distinction between mnnufac,..
ture and commerce. Manufacture. II
said, was something done entirely
within g State and under state, not
United States control and It had no
direct connection with or relation to
fractured from one State to another
~ was true, II said. that It might have
an indirect and remote connection with
Gle manufactured, but it had. no direct
relation to H. and the act of Congress
vas vas intended to apply to combinations
that operated directly upon interstate
a1fected ". Il at all, indirectly This
doctrine that the combinat ton. to be
condemned by the act must affect in
terstate commerce directly and not IN,
VS.. United States, III U. S. r. Els. and
g. G"e 5. r.. e ~. the United states.
a corporation called the Kansas
stock sd Yards Company owned ed, st stock
number of the commission merchants
who dealt In cattle did their business,
which consisted in buying and selling
cattle tie sent to their stock yards In vast
Nebraska, Colorado, Texas. Missouri.
Iowa and Kansas. and from the Terri
tories OF Oklahoma, Arizona and New
Mexico.
Those commission merchants formed
an association, which was not incorro-
rated, called the Kansas City Live
STOCK Exchange. and owners OF cattle
IN the various States and Territories
mission merchants to be sold by them.
the proceeds to be RENTED to tho
owners of the cattle after deductinS
money advanced in many cases by tho
The articles Of association fixed tho
rates that were to be charged as COM
missions on sales and purchase. and
forbade any memter to have any deal
tiit, VISA AuJ PGISOU WIZ WVuu iol
live up to the rules OF the association.
The exchange itself did no business
OF any. kind. and 1t existed only to
prescribe rules and provide facilities
members. Zach member OF the assoc
citation was left free to compete with
every other member in every fair and
Just manner for his share of the bust
were the rules adopted everywhere else
in the country where live stock was
sold, and the exchange never refused
to admit as member any reputable
the rules OF the association. Any per-
son could send cattle to the stock
yards who would pay its charges and
they could be sent there for sale to
association or not. and the owner could
sell his own cattle there IL he chose.
The Supreme Court held that this COM
was no more than an arrar ge-
terms upon which they would do their
business as between themselves and
that 1t did not act directly upon COM
merce between the States in any way.
II it affected interstate, in any way. It
was only Indirectly and remotely. and
was, therefore. no restraint on inter
state trade and commerce. The case
of Anderson VS.. United States. III U.
8. r.. 6ni. was the same in all essen
tial particulars.
IN Conoliy VS.. IDlon SeWef Compa ny.
1874 U. s.. $40 there was combina-
ton amongst manufacturers which was
claimed TO be In violation OF the anti
trust act. One of the parties to the
sold goods to the defend
Failing to pay his note. the company
sued him. and he set up tire illegal
that the plaintiff was in
as defense to the suit. but the SUI
preme Court held it was no defense.
and that he must pay his note.
believe these are all of the deci-
sions that the Sunreme Court has mad 9
IN the meter. They exhibit the actual
state of the law. and. In my opinion.
they make the duty of the President
too plain fer argument. In my opinion
he Is doire his dntv and should be
for doing 1t.
WIN. L. ROYAL.
Richmond, November 4. 1907.