profitable to them. The plaintiff applied to purchase, but refused to refrain from handling the goods of the corporation's competitors, and sued it for damages caused by the refusal of the defendants to sell their commodities to him at prices which would make it profitable for him to buy them and sell them again. It was held that such a restriction of their own trade by the defendants to those purchasers who declined to deal in the goods of their competitors was not violative of the antitrust law. The importance of the case is due to the learned discussion of the statute by Judge Shiras, his views having been subsequently approved by the Supreme Court. It is to be noted, however, that the decision gives no sanction to a combination or mutual agreement between dealers to restrict sales in the way they were thus restricted by the Continental Tobacco Co., acting alone. WILLAMETTE IRON BRIDGE CO. v. HATCH (125 U. S., 1), quoted, page 49: The case is merely one of several asserting the paramountcy of Federal control over navigable waters within the States with reference to bridges, etc., holding that Congress is not concluded by any structures previously erected pursuant to State authority. WILLIAMS v. FEARS (179 U. S., 270), quoted, page 21: This is one of the cases by which the line is drawn between transactions which belong to and those not belonging to interstate commerce. By a general revenue act of the State of Georgia, a specific tax was levied upon many occupations, including that of "emigrant agent," meaning a person engaged in hiring laborers to be employed beyond the limits of the State. It was held that the imposition of the tax fell within the distinction between interstate commerce, or an instrumentality thereof and the mere incidents which may attend the carrying on of such commerce; that these labor contracts were not in themselves subjects of traffic between the States, nor was the business of hiring laborers so immediately connected with interstate transportation or interstate traffic that it could correctly be said that those who followed it were engaged in interstate commerce. Therefore, as the tax on that occupation did not constitute a burden on interstate commerce, the statute was upheld. WILSON v. SHAW (204 U. S., 24), quoted, page 156: This case involved several questions of great national importance. The suit was evidently brought to test the validity of executive and legislative acts and proceedings culminating in the acquisition of territory for and the construction of the Panama Canal. Among other conclusions reached, it was held that Congress has power, under the commerce clause, to create interstate highways, including canals, and also those wholly within territory outside of State lines. And it was announced that the previous declarations of the court upholding the power of Congress to construct interstate or territorial highways were not obiter dicta, and to announce a different doctrine would amount to overruling decisions on which rest a vast volume of rights and in reliance on which Congress has acted in many ways. WILSON v. UNITED STATES (221 U. S., 361), quoted, page 67: This case is not essentially different from that of Hale v. Henkel supra, though it was decided additionally that the ad testificandum clause is not essential to the validity of a subpoena duces tecum ard that the production of papers by one having them under his control may be enforced independently of his testimony. WISCONSIN v. DULUTH (U. S., 379), quoted, page 35: This was a suit in equity to enjoin and stay the progress of improvements of an harbor of Lake Superior being made under authority of an act of Congress. The court held that where Congress had in the exercise of its lawful authority inaugurated such improvements it (the court) had no authority to prescribe the manner in which the work would be conducted, or to forbid its completion, or to require the undoing of that which had been done. YICK WO v. HOPKINS (118 U. S., 356), quoted, page 64: The decision was of personal rights under constitutional provisions other than the commerce clause. GENERAL INDEX. Antitrust act: Quotations from cases arising under...... Looks not to effect upon prices, but to effect upon competition...... Definitions of monopoly for purposes of construing.. Page. 115-145 115 116 117 120, 121 Violated by combinations of railroad corporations.. Evil or ruinous consequences of enforcing, not to control courts. Remedies provided by, not extra-territorially enforceable.. Substantial relation must be shown to interstate commerce in cases under. 121, 122 121-125 122-124 129-138 139, 140 147-151 152, 153 187 188 189 203, 204 Stockyards association held not combination violative of. 232, 233 256 260-262 Combination of oil companies in form of holding company held within pro- 282 Violated by having common, purchasing, selling, and transporting agen- 283 Vast combination of tobacco dealers and manufacturers held to be within 286-289 Combination between interstate railroads within prohibitions of... 293, 295-297 295 297 64 Brokerage contracts do not pertain to interstate commerce, but governed by Carmack amendment to Hepburn Act, held constitutional. Carrier may hire, when it does not own, facilities... Cases used herein: Adair v. United States (208 U. S., 161).. Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky (214 U. S., 218) . Addystone Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States (175 U. S., 211). American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co. (213 U. S., 347). 56097-12-20 17, 18, 20 17, 19, 187 13, 57, 82, 115, 116, 139, 188 152, 189 62, 189 114, 190 19, 190 305 Cases used herein-Continued. Armour Packing Co. v. United States (209 U. S., 56). Asbell v. Kansas (209 U. S., 251)........ Page. 77, 86, 109, 195 17, 42, 197 Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Mazursky (216 U. S., 122). 198 86, 198 147, 199 Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., ex rel., United States (215 U. S., 481)... 102, 199 Bement v. National Harrow Co. (186 U. S., 70) 140, 203 U. S., 236).. Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. (125 U. S., 465).. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Christie Grain & Stock Co. (198 203 25, 153, 176, 204 Brown v. Maryland (12 Wheat., 419). Buttfield v. Stranahan (192 U. S., 470).. California v. Central Pac. R. R. Co. (127 U. S., 1).. Case of the State Tax on Gross Receipts (15 Wall., 284). 9, 15, 206 156, 157, 207 53, 207 24, 208 31, 208 128, 209 75, 117, 177, 209 Chattanooga Foundry & P. Works v. City of Atlanta (203 U. S., 390)... 168, 209 170, 209 172, 210 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. M'Guire (219 U. S., 549)... 66, 210 25, 210 Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Arkansas (219 U. S., 453)... 36, 210 81, 211 Cincinnati, Portsmouth, Big Sandy & Pomeroy Packet Co. v. Bay (200 Coe v. Errol (116 U. S., 517). Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. (184 U. S., 540). Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons Co. (212 U. S., Cincinnati, N. O. & Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commis- 211 151, 211 32, 151, 213 147, 148, 213 Cook v. State (26 Ind. App., 278)..... Cooley v. Wardens of the Port (12 How., 299). Coppell v. Hall (7 Wal,., 542). County of Mobile v. Kimball (102 U. S., 691).. Covington, Etc., Bridge Co. v. Kentucky (154 U. S., 204). Crutcher v. Kentucky (141 U. S., 47).......... Davis v. C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (217 U. S., 157). Debs, in re (158 U. S., 564). Dozier v. Alabama (218 U. S., 124)... Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. Parks & Sons Co. (220 U. S., 373). Employers' Liability Cases (207 U. S., 463).. Escanaba Co. v. Chicago (107 U. S., 678).. 174, 213 148, 214 32, 37, 79, 152, 215 60, 215 12, 218 149, 219 171, 220 45, 176, 222 31, 222 |