144 
Strong—The Legal Status of Trusts. 
into an unlawful and fraudulent scheme to purchase the stock of 
these companies with the design of monopolizing the manu¬ 
facture and sale of refined sugar in the United States. In the 
opinion of the court, the only questions raised were: “(1) Do 
the facts show a contract, combination, or conspiracy to restrain 
trade and commerce, or a monopoly within the legal significance 
of these terms? (2) Do they show such a contract, combina¬ 
tion or conspiracy to restrain or monopolize trade or commerce 
among the several states or foreign nations? (3) Can the relief 
sought be had in this proceeding?” Judge Butler said that the 
first and third questions need not be considered, and answered 
the other in the negative. “ The contracts of the defendants 
have no reference and bear no relation to commerce between the 
states or with foreign nations. Granting, therefore, that a. 
monopoly exists in the ownership of such refineries and busi¬ 
ness it does not constitute a restriction or a monopoly of inter¬ 
state commerce. The latter is untouched and unrestrained and 
open to all who chose to engage in it. ” The government ap¬ 
pealed the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals, 23 where the 
decree of the lower court was affirmed. Judge Dallas said: 
“ The most that can be said, and this for the present purpose 
may be assumed, is that the sugar trust has acquired control of 
the business of refining and selling sugar in the United States. 
But does this involve monopoly or restraint of foreign or inter¬ 
state commerce? We are clearly of opinion that it does not. 
We do not deem it necessary to say more, inasmuch as the sub¬ 
ject has very recently been considered and passed upon in the 
case of Greene.” (See page 142, note 17.) 
The cases that have been cited are the principal ones where 
indictments have been framed under the law of 1890, and it is 
plain that not only has the act failed in every important case, 
but it is safe to say that a favorable judgment can neither be 
obtained or enforced in such a way as to destroy the trusts and 
combinations which it was expected to eradicate. 
State Anti-Trust Laws. —Few cases have been tried under the 
various state statutes; consequently it is difficult to judge of 
22 U. S. C. C. A., March 26,1894, 60 Fed. Rep. 934. 
