THE DECISIONS OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, AT OCTOBER TERM, 1894. Authenticated copy of opinion record strictly followed, except as to such reference words and figures as are inclosed in brackets.] Act to protect commerce from restraints and monopolies object of Act-article of commerce-purchase of sugar refineries. 1. The Act of Congress of July 2, 1890, to protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints and monopolies was intended to prevent combinations, contracts and conspiracies to monopolize or restrain interstate or international trade and commerce. object of which is private gain in the manufacture, but not through the control of commerce, and which bear no direct relation to commerce between the states, or with foreign nations; that trade or commerce might be indirectly affected is not enough. [No. 675]. Argued Oct. 24, 1894. Decided Jan. 21, 1895. A PPEAL from a decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, affirming the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, dismissing a suit in equity by the United States against E. C. Knight Company et al., to cancel and declare void certain alleged unlawful agreements entered into between the defendants and for the surrender of the stock received by them in performance of said agreements, porations or citizens in the acquisition, control, and for an injunction restraining defendants or disposition of property; or to regulate or pre-from performing the same and from further scribe the prices at which property or the products thereof should be sold: or to make criminal the acts of persons in the acquisition or control of property which the states sanctioned or permitted. 2. Congress did not attempt by the Act of July 2, 1890, to assert the power to deal with monopoly as such; or to limit or restrict the rights of cor 8. That an article is manufactured for export to another state does not make it an article of interstate commerce; the intent of the manufacture does not determine when the article belongs to commerce. 4. The Act of July 2, 1890, does not authorize the restraint or prevention of contracts which relate exclusively to the acquisition of sugar refineries and the business of sugar refining in a state, the NOTE.-48 to power of Congress to regulate commerce, see notes to Gibbons v. Ogden, 6: 23, and Brown v. Maryland, 6: 678. As to tonnage tax, see note to Inman SS. Co. v. Tinker, 24: 118. As to interstate commerce; regulation of: power of Congress, how far exclusive, see note to Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 29: 158. As to power of Congress to control commerce; state statute when valid as being a regulation of cornmerce; drummers; vessels; railways; telegraph companies; state tax on commerce, when invalid, see note to Harmon v. Chicago, 37: 216. 156 U.S. U. S., Book 89 21 violations of the Act of Congress of July 2, 1890; the circuit court holding that the facts did not show a contract, combination, or conspiracy to restrain or monopolize trade or commerce among the several states or with foreign nations. Affirmed. See same case below, 60 Fed. Rep. 306, 934. Statement by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller: *This was a bill filed by the United States [2 against E. C. Knight Company and others, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, charging that the defendants had violated the provisions of an Act of Congress approved July 2, 1890, entitled, "An Act to Protect Trade and Commerce Against unlawful Restraints and Monopolies" (26 Stat. at L. 209, chap. 647) "proform of trust, or otherwise, or conspiracy in viding that every contract, combination in the restraint of trade and commerce among the shall monopolize or shall attempt to monopseveral states is illegal, and that persons who olize, or combine or conspire with other persons to monopolize trade and commerce among the several states, shall be guilty of a misde. 825 |