CONTROL THE TRUSTS BY CONGRESS 207 



operation is unfair to the non-managing stockholders, and 

 should, as well for reasons of state, be prohibited by law. If 

 these serious evils were eradicated and a higher measure of 

 administrative responsibility required in corporate officers, a 

 long step would be taken toward allaying the reasonable ap- 

 prehension that the unchecked aggression of the trusts will 

 result in practical monopoly of the important business of the 

 country. 



Less difficulty is encountered in describing the mischief 

 of trusts than in suggesting a rational and practical remedy. 



The constitution provides (section 8, article 3) : The con- 

 gress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign na- 

 tions and among the several states and with the Indian tribes. 

 Congress, July 2, 1890, enacted that every contract, combina- 

 tion in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in re- 

 straint of trade or commerce among the several states is ille- 

 gal, providing punishments and conferring jurisdiction upon 

 federal circuit courts to prevent and restrain violations of the 

 act. It was commonly supposed at the time of the passage 

 of this act that its provisions forbade the existence of trusts 

 that were engaged in monopolizing the production through- 

 out the country of various articles of general consumption, 

 and the government shared in this view. Action was begun 

 by the United States against what was known as the sugar 

 trust. This was a corporation of the state of New Jersey, 

 which had acquired the stock of a number of sugar refining 

 corporations in another state by an exchange of its own 

 shares for the shares of the vending stockholders of those 

 companies. It was formed, as its charter stated, for the 

 purpose of . " buying, manufacturing, refining, and selling 

 sugar in different parts of the country." 



The government's contention was that the purpose of 

 the purchase was to acquire a substantial monopoly of sugar 

 refining, and as the product was for sale and distribution 

 among the states and to foreign countries, that the arrange- 

 ment was a violation of the law cited. The contract chal- 

 lenged was one vesting in the trust the last of the independent 

 refineries but one in the United States, thereby giving it the 

 almost complete monopoly of a necessary of life. Its control 



