Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

lor, 208 U. S. 274, 297, 28 Sup. Ct. 201, 52 L. Ed. 488; Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 331, 24 Sup. Ct. 436, 48 L. Ed. 679. But the power of Congress to legislate upon the subject, aside from the territories and the District of Columbia, is derived from its power to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations. It is therefore well settled that it does not apply to restraints or monopolies as such, but only to those which directly and immediately, or those which necessarily, affect commerce among the states or with foreign nations. If the law were held applicable to contracts or combinations indirectly or remotely affecting such commerce, it would substantially obliterate the distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce, the latter being as exclusively within the regulating power of the state as is the former within the power of Congress. In Hopkins v. United States, 171 U. S. 578, 594, 600, 19 Sup. Ct. 40, 45, 46, 43 L. Ed. 290, Mr. Justice Peckham emphasizes this obvious limitation when, speaking for the court, he said:

"There must be some direct and immediate effect upon interstate commerce in order to come within the act."

The same discriminating justice then adds:

direct.

* *

*

"An agreement may in a variety of ways affect interstate commerce, just as state legislation may, and yet, like it, be entirely valid, because the interference produced by the agreement or by the legislation would not be The act must have a reasonable construction, or else there would scarcely be an agreement or contract among business men that could not be said to have, indirectly or remotely, some bearing upon interstate commerce, and possibly restrain it."

This limitation of the act to those contracts and combinations which directly and immediately or necessarily affect commerce among the states is recognized in a long series of opinions. Among them are: United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1, 15 Sup. Ct. 249, 39 L. Ed. 325; Addystone Pipe Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 211, 242, 20 Sup. Ct. 96, 44 L. Ed. 136; Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 193 U. S. 38, 24 Sup. Ct. 307, 48 L. Ed. 608; Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 331, 24 Sup. Ct. 436, 48 L. Ed. 679; Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274, 297, 28 Sup. Ct. 301, 52 L. Ed. 488. The Knight Case, in its last analysis, is but a striking illustration of the rule that the monopoly or agreement to come within the act must directly and immediately affect interstate commerce. Confining the case to its facts, it establishes the proposition that a mere combination between manufacturers only, by which a monopoly of a product results, is not, without other special circumstances, sufficient to justify an active intervention under the act to undo a contract by which such monopoly has been brought about. That the product thus monopolized by such combination of mere manufacturers may ultimately find itself into the stream of interstate commerce is there held not to be such a special circumstance as to constitute the direct and immediate effect upon commerce among the states as to bring the agreement within the act. Subsequent cases have been distinguished from it, but it has never been overruled. In Addystone Pipe Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 211, 240, 20 Sup. Ct. 96, 107, 44 L. Ed. 136, it was said:

"The direct purpose of the combination in the Knight Case was the control of the manufacture of sugar. There was no combination or agreement, in terms, regarding the future disposition of the manufactured article; nothing looking to a transaction in the nature of interstate commerce. The probable intention on the part of the manufacturer of the sugar to thereafter dispose of it by sending it to some market in another state was held to be immaterial and not to alter the character of the combination. The various cases which have been decided in this court relating to the subject of interstate commerce, and to the difference between that and the manufacture of commodities, and also the police power of the states as affected by the commerce clause of the Constitution, were adverted to, and the case was decided upon the principle that a combination simply to control manufacture was not a violation of the act of Congress, because such a contract or combination did not directly control or affect interstate commerce, but that contracts for the sale and transportations to other states of specific articles were proper subjects for regulation because they did form part of such commerce."

Referring to the facts in the Addystone Case as taking it out of the Knight Case, the court said:

"We think the case now before us involves contracts of the nature last above mentioned, not incidentally or collaterally, but as a direct and immediate result of the combination engaged in by the defendants.

"While no particular contract regarding the furnishing of pipe and the price for which it should be furnished was in the contemplation of the parties to the combination at the time of its formation, yet it was their intention, as it was the purpose of the combination, to directly and by means of such combination increase the price for which all contracts for the delivery of pipe within the territory above described should be made, and the latter result was to be achieved by abolishing all competition between the parties to the combination. The direct and immediate result of the combination was therefore necessarily a restraint upon interstate commerce in respect of articles manufactured by any of the parties to it to be transported beyond the state in which they were made. The defendants, by reason of this combination and agreement, could only send their goods out of the state in which they were manufactured, for sale and delivery in another state, upon the terms and pursuant to the provisions of such combination. As pertinently asked by the court below, was not this a direct restraint upon interstate commerce in those goods?"

In Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 297, 28 Sup. Ct. 305, 52 L. Ed. 488, it was said of the combination involved in the Knight Case that "the purpose of the agreement was not to obstruct or restrain commerce. The object and intention determined its legality." Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, 25 Sup. Ct. 276, 49 L. Ed. 518, was a case of a combination between fresh meat dealers, dominating a large proportion of the trade in the United States, for the purpose of regulating prices, shipments, and freight rates to the exclusion of competition. The combination was, of course, invalid within the law. The court, in its opinion by Justice Holmes, in dealing with the effect of the combination as a restraint upon commerce among the states, said that restraint of that commerce was"a direct object; it is that for which the said several specific acts and courses of conduct are done and adopted. Therefore the case is not like United States v. Knight Co., where the subject-matter of the combination was manufactories within a state. However likely monopoly of commerce among the states in the article manufactured was to follow from the agreement, it was not a

necessary consequence nor a primary end. Here the subject-matter is sales, and the very point of the combination is to restrain and monopolize commerce among the states in respect to such sales."

The specific thing complained of in the case for decision is that one Michigan mining corporation has obtained by purchase or proxy a majority of the capital shares of another Michigan mining corporation, and purposes to exercise its voting power to place in the directory of the latter a majority of its own selection from its own board of officers. The specific relief sought is an injunction against the exercise of the voting power, and a decree compelling a disposition of the shares so held under purchase or proxy. What has the Calumet & Hecla Mining Company done or what does it threaten to do which is a violation of the anti-trust act of Congress? It has the legal right to purchase and vote shares of stock in the Osceola Company under the laws of Michigan. This we have already considered. Of course, if such stock ownership and such stock control is enough to constitute a direct and immediate or necessary restraint upon trade and commerce between the states, the sanction of the state act goes for nothing. This much is settled by the Northern Securities Case, for a state cannot give to a corporation the lawful right to do anything which is a direct restraint of commerce between the states. How, then, does the exercise of the power of stock control by one mining or manufacturing corporation over another in the same state directly and immediately or necessarily operate as a restraint of commerce among the states? Confessedly the products of these two companies are in competition in the markets, and confessedly the greater part of the product of each will, sooner or later, enter into the stream of interstate commerce, for the chief demand for the product is outside the state of production. But that is not enough. There was all this and more in the Knight Case. If, indeed, such stock control results in a monopoly, it is only a monopoly in manufacture in the same state, and we have again the conceded situation in the Knight Case. Unless that monopoly of manufacture in a single state of a product which goes into interstate commerce directly and immediately or necessarily interferes with or restrains that commerce, the monopoly does not come under the act of Congress. But we are unable to conclude upon this record that mere stock control of such a company by another in the same state either directly or necessarily destroys competition there, or, if it did, that it results in any such monopoly as to directly or necessarily and immediately affect commerce among the states.

The Calumet & Hecla Mining Company does not own a majority, nor anything like a majority, of the stock of the Osceola Consolidated Mining Company. If it has the power to cast a majority of votes at a stockholders' meeting, it is because there are enough of the stockholders of the latter company willing to co-operate with it in the selection of a board. But it does not follow, if we assume for the purposes of this case that the evil is the same whether its power of election is due to a combination of shares own

ed with proxies or by the ownership of a majority of all the stock, that the ownership constitutes a legal control, or that competition is thereby ended. A board elected by the owner of such a majority would not in any legal sense be the control of such majority owner, nor from such ownership could the legal inference be drawn, that the Calumet & Hecla Company dominated the management of the Osceola Company. The two companies would still remain separate corporations, each managed presumably in its own interest. Pullman Co. v. Missouri Pacific Co., 115 U. S. 587, 596, 6 Sup. Ct. 194, 29 L. Ed. 499; Porter v. Pittsburg Bessemer Steel Co., 120 U. S. 649, 670, 7 Sup. Ct. 1206, 30 L. Ed. 830; Richmond Construction Co. v. Richmond, 68 Fed. 105, 15 C. C. A. 289, 34 L. Ed. 625. But if the presumption be, in respect to a question of restraint or monopoly under the act of Congress, that the power to determine the management of a competing corporation through ownership of a majority of shares constitutes a suppression of competition, we come to the inquiry as to whether such presumption is one of fact or law. If one of fact, as it evidently is, it is rebuttable.. We quite agree that purpose or motive is of no moment, provided, the contract or agreement directly provided for the suppression of competition, or when such a result, as a matter, of law, must nec-: essarily occur. United States v. Freight Ass'n, 166 U. S. 291, 17. Sup. Ct. 540, 41 L. Ed. 1007; Chesapeake & Ohio Fuel Co. v. United States, 115 Fed. 610, 623, 53 C. C. 256. But when the agreement or combination in question does not in its terms provide for. the suppression of competition or the creation of a monopoly, nor bring about such a result as a necessary legal consequence, but re-; quires further acts or conduct to bring about such an unlawful re-, sult, some evidence of an unlawful intent becomes essential, that the court may see that, if not stopped, a prohibited restraint is likely to be created. In Swift Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, 25 Sup. Ct. 276, 49 L. Ed. 518, it was said by Mr. Justice Holmes, that:

"The statute gives this proceeding against combinations in restraint of commerce among the states, and against attempts to monopolize the same. Intent is almost essential to such a combination, and is essential to such an attempt. Where acts are not sufficient in themselves to produce a result which the law seeks to prevent-for instance, the monopoly-but require further acts in addition to the mere forces of nature to bring that result to pass,; an intent to bring it to pass is necessary in order to produce a dangerous probability that it will happen. Commonwealth v. Peaslee, 177 Mass. 267, 272, 59 N. E. 55. But when the intent and the consequent dangerous probability' exist, this statute, like many others and like the common law in some cases, directs itself against the dangerous probability as well as against the complete. result."

The power of stock control which the Calumet Company has acquired may be exercised only in a legitimate and lawful way in the interest of an economical management of both companies. In that case, it has done nothing directly affecting commerce among the

states.

On the other hand, that power may be a mere preparation for the doing of acts which will directly and necessarily interfere with the

freedom of that kind of commerce which it is the purpose of Congress to protect. When this unlawful use of the power shall result in an unlawful restraint, or further steps shall point to results directly affecting such commerce, there may be interference by the courts. The Calumet & Hecla Mining Company vigorously deny any purpose to either bring about a monopoly, restrain competition, or diminish production, and assert that their only object was to extend their industrial life by the acquirement of an interest in the oreproducing lands of the Osceola Company and the more economical management of their own property by a friendly and mutually advantageous use of the facilities of the two companies. The two properties are in large part contiguous. In a very convincing opinion, the judge who heard the case below states the leading facts which made it desirable and economical that there should be, to a certain extent, a co-operation in future mining operations by the two companies, in order that certain poorer lodes underlying the conglomerate lode of the Calumet Company, which has been worked to a point where exhaustion is in sight, may be worked to the best advantage of both companies. We shall not go into the details. We refer and adopt the conclusion stated by Judge Knappen, who thus sums up the evidence relating to the motive or purpose actuating the Calumet & Hecla Mining Company:

"I am convinced, from a careful consideration of the testimony, that the controlling motive and purpose of the Calumet & Hecla Company in acquiring its interest in the mining properties mentioned was to extend its industrial life, and keep up and increase, if possible, its production and net earnings, and that the evidence fairly negatives a design thereby to reduce the output of any of the companies or artificially to increase or maintain the price of the product, or to stifle competition between the related companies, or to prejudice other stockholders generally of either company associated, or to interfere with the integrity of either company, a common management with separate detalied organization being contemplated. The evidence does not indicate that any use of the facilities of the associated companies is contemplated, except upon terms and in manner mutually advantageous."

But it is said that the stock control of the Osceola Company will result in a monopoly. If this be so, and it be only a monopoly in mining and refining copper brought about by the combination of two companies of the same state conducting their operations side by side, it is not enough, under the Knight Case, to bring the agreement within the act, even though the fact be that the product will in large part pass ultimately into interstate commerce. In the Knight Case, the American Sugar Refining Company, if permitted to combine with the four independent refining companies at Philadelphia, would control 98 per cent. of all the sugar refining in the United States. Such a combination undoubtedly brought about a monopoly under the common law. But as it was only a monopoly in manufacture, it was held not to be a restraint of trade among the states, although the great bulk of the product was ultimately destined for commerce among the states, the effect upon such commerce being indirect. There is, in fact, no parallel between the facts of that case and this in respect to the probable results of the two combinations. In this case it is shown that the world's production of copper in

« EdellinenJatka »