The

any more than make up for these extra expenses. economic strength of the company will enable it to meet these difficulties without any great trouble.

IV

The tin-plate combination is an arbitrary but natural attempt to raise the price of that product. It is interesting to note to just what extent the combination is due to the tariff. In the first section of our study reference was made to the repeal of the tariff as one of the possible ways of injuring the industry. Without the protection now afforded to tin-plate through the Dingley Bill it would be impossible for the industry to exist. The tariff, however, did not directly create the combination. Under the protection afforded since 1890 many plants came into existence, competing with one another until the price was unduly lowered. Then came efforts to organize a great syndicate, which were successful. In consequence of that organization, the price of tin-plate has been increased, and a monopoly over the production of it secured through the policy of the company in relation to dealers and machine makers. The consumer is thus forced to pay for not only the maintenance of the industry, but also the profits of the company. The English makers are shut out of the market and the combination thus completely controls the production of the commodity inside of the country. So long as the tariff remains at a protective figure, it is likely that the syndicate will be able to stop any effort to renew the competition.

Another factor bids well to enter the problem which has probably been overlooked in the calculations of the syndicate managers. That is the repeal of the tariff duties. In the last few months several of the more prominent papers representing the political party that established the tariff on tin-plate have commented editorially on the necessity of that party taking up the question of monopolies. Severally these papers have reached a common solution. Their editors have come to regard the tariff as responsible for trusts and, therefore, the

1 Philadelphia Ledger, Chicago Times-Herald, St. Paul Pioneer Press.

repeal of such legislation the direct and effective way of dealing with them. It is not necessary to consider any arguments for or against the above supposition. But any such attitude to the extent of legislation threatens the existence both of the tin-plate syndicate and the industry. It would be impossible for the American syndicate to withstand the renewal of English imports. Two movements might result from such a policy on the part of Congress: first, to break the syndicate into many parts, the individual companies claiming that they were no longer a party to the monopoly agreement, but were still in need of the protection; second, for the present company to unite with the English firms in an effort to form an international combination. This would be the more natural step to take, but at the same time the more difficult one to accomplish. The popular demand and the hostile attitude of the people toward large capitalistic concerns will undoubtedly cause the party to very seriously consider the movement spoken of above. The possibility of such an attitude will impress itself on all thinking men.

On the other hand, another movement, other than political, can be seen in the iron and steel industries. Within the last two years a number of concerns have entered combinations so that to-day instead of there being many companies engaged in allied lines of industry, there are several combinations corresponding to the several lines of production. A very large part of the iron and steel product is controlled by seven corporations.1 A reference to the respective charters of the American Tin-Plate and American Steel and Wire companies, is sufficient to indicate that the union of combinations with combinations is by no means impossible. There is one limitation upon such a movement and that is the inability of men to manage a concern economically that has a capital and output beyond a certain amount. Until that point is reached, combination will probably continue, and it is possible that we may see an attempt to unite all of the iron and steel industries

1 American Steel and Wire Co., American Tin-Plate Co., the Granite Ware Co., the Carnegie Co., Union Chain and Steel Co., the Illinois Steel Co. and Mesaba Range Mining Co.

under one management. As has already been pointed out, there is nothing in the charters of the two concerns compared in the second section of this article to prevent union. The provisions are so wide that the manufacture of steel wires and rods could be carried on by the tin-plate company or the production of tin-plate by the steel wire and rod company. It would be natural that the two should unite, or the entire steel industry might possibly come under the control of one gigantic combination.

The industry of our study thus stands in two dangers: first, of possibly placing prices so high that it will be impossible to maintain them, leading to a virtual revolt on the part of consumers; and second, the political movement culminating in the possible withdrawal of the tariff. If the consumers of tin become dissatisfied with the attitude of the company in the matter of prices, the political movement may be reënforced by their opposition to the combination.

The American Tin-Plate Company has existed less than six months, so that the developments possible to the future are necessarily conjectural. Strong as the company is in its organization, it is particularly vulnerable from the political movement mentioned above.

UNIVERSITY Of Minnesota.

FRANK L. MCVEY.

XIV

THE NORTHERN SECURITIES COMPANY 1

R. JUSTICE HARLAN announced the affirmance of the decree of the circuit court, and delivered the following

opinion:

This suit was brought by the United States against the Northern Securities Company, a corporation of New Jersey; the Great Northern Railway Company, a corporation of Minnesota; the Northern Pacific Railway Company, a corporation of Wisconsin; James J. Hill, a citizen of Minnesota; and others.

Its general object was to enforce, as against the defendants, the provisions of the statute of July 2, 1890, commonly known as the Anti-Trust Act, and entitled "An Act to Protect Trade and Commerce Against Unlawful Restraints and Monopolies.' 26 Stat. at L., 209, chap. 647, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, page 3200. By the decree below the United States was given substantially the relief asked by it in the bill.

As the act is not very long, and as the determination of the particular questions arising in this case may require a consideration of the scope and meaning of most of its provisions, it is here given in full:

§ 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract, or engage in any such com

1 Abridged from the text of the decision. Supreme Court of the United States, No. 277, October Term, 1903, Northern Securities Company, etc., v. The United States, March 14, 1903.

An excellent history of the case is given in outline by Professor B. H. Meyer, in the Railway Age, March 18, 1903, to be published in more extended monographic form shortly. A bibliography of the subject is also appended to A List of Books relating to Railroads, published by the Library of Congress, 1904. - ED.

bination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

§ 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize, any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said. punishments, in the discretion of the court.

§ 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such territory and another, or between any such territory or territories and any state or states or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia, and any state or states or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

§ 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this act ; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the AttorneyGeneral, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and, pending such petition, and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.

§ 5. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section four of this act may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.