1900.] HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. Sou 
manufacture is no part of commerce, is made largely the basis of 
the decision. In Chief Justice Fuller’s view, the trust was a manu- 
facturing organization, and with the control of manufacturing the 
states alone are concerned. He thinks the law carefully framed 
with a view to established principles in not professing to deal with 
monopoly as such, but only with combinations ‘‘to monopolize 
trade with foreign nations and among the states.’’ He finds in 
the acts complained of no direct relation to commerce between the 
states or with foreign nations, and that the allegations of the dis- 
tribution of the company’s products among different states and of 
dealings with foreign nations show merely that ‘‘ trade serves manu. 
facturing.’’ 
The Chief Justice’s use of Kidd vs. Pearson seems hardly a fair 
one. Justice Lamar’s position really is that Mugler vs. Kansas had 
ascertained that intoxicating liquors were so far an exception among 
commodities that their manufacture could be forbidden without in- 
fringing on the liberties of a citizen; that their manufacture had 
been forbidden in lowa, except for certain purposes, and that for 
any other purpose they had no lawful existence in that state and so 
could not become subjects of commerce there. That he would 
have applied the holdings of the same case to the manufacture of 
sugar is impossible to believe. Selling is as much a part of com- 
merce as is buying, and manufacture is as closely connected with 
selling as is transportation with either. Justice Lamar’s argument 
that with manufacturing as such Congress has nothing to do is 
merely incidental. 
The dissenting opinion urges with great force that this is not a 
mere manufacturing organization, but also a buying and selling 
one. The very purpose for which it sought to control sugar manu- 
facturing facilities was in order to control the market, and the 
trial court so found. What market? None other than the inter- 
state market of this country, as the proof amply shows. The only 
object of controlling the production was for the express purpose of 
monopolizing foreign and interstate trade in the thing produced, to 
control the price by monopolizing the product. It attacks the im- 
plied assertion of the court’s opinion that because the company is 
a manufacturing one it cannot also be a trading one and of a for- 
bidden kind. Indeed, there seems implied in the court’s opinion 
a doctrine that the trade activity of this trust cannot be regulated 
without affecting its manufacturing, and so Congress has no power, 
