it cannot touch trade wholly within a State. This was one of the most difficult points about the railroad merger, the Northern Se curities Company, it was claimed, was a New Jersey corporation doing no business outside that State. Mr. Justice Harían says bluntly that this is not the truth of this matter taken as a whole, "this combination is within the meaning of the act a combination in restraint of interstate and international commerce. And Mr. Justice Brewer states simply that, "the holding corporation was a mere instru mentality by which the separate railroad properties were combined under one control, that combination is as direct a restraint of trade by destroying competition as the ap pointment of a committee to regulate rates. On the other hand Mr. Justice White puts it this way: "Can it on reason be maintained that to prescribe rules governing the owner ship of stock within a State in a corporation created by it is within the power to prescribe rules for the regulation of intercourse be tween citizens of different States?" And Mr. Justice Holmes adds, "the fact that trade or commerce may be indirectly affected is not enough, interstate commerce depends upon population, but Congress could not upon that ground undertake to regulate mar riage and divorce, there would then be no part of the conduct of life with which on similar principles Congress could not inter fere." The real inquiry, therefore, becomes whether this creation of the securities com pany involved a combination in restraint of interstate commerce. Here again the opin ions conflict. Mr. Justice Harían as before holds that it did, "necessarily by the combina tion or arrangement, the holding company in the fullest sense dominates the situation in the interest of those who were shareholders in the constituent companies." Mr. Justice Brewer reinforces this by the reminder that, "there was a combination by several indi viduals separately owning stock in two com
peting railroad companies to place the con trol of both in a single corporation, the pur pose to combine and by combination destroy competition that existed before the organiza tion of the corporation of the Securities Com pany. Mr. Justice White continues his argument that this is a simple corporation "investing in the stock of other corpora tions," while Mr. Justice Holmes insists that "a combination or consolidation of existing1 roads, although in actual competition, into one company of exactly the same powers and extent would not be obnoxious to the law." . This discloses the principal issue raised by the minority, that all that has been done by all of these defendants is not contrary to the form of the statute. Surely the act is comprehensive enough; it provides as fol lows: "Sec. i. 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 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. Sec. 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 convictionthereof, shall be punished by fine not ex ceeding five thousand dollars, or by impris onment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Yet square issue is taken. Mr. Jus tice Harían on one side declares that, "No scheme or device could more effectively or certainly come within the act or could more
