Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/269

 196

THE GREEN BAG

the Northern Securities case, as follows: "It is said that this statute contains crimi nal provisions and must therefore be strictly construed. ... It means only that we must not bring cases within the pro visions of such a statute that are not clearly embraced by it, nor by narrow, technical or forced construction of words, exclude cases from it that are obviously within its pro visions." (193 U. S. 197, 358.)

not authorized by it." This question has never been passed upon the the Supreme Court, but, by reason of its inherent logic and frequent affirmances by the Circuit Court of Appeals, it may -be regarded as settled law. In the hands of the Government, however, this remedy has proven a most effective one, and has been liberally applied by the Supreme Court. In the Northern Securi ties case (193 U. S 197) the Government sought an injunction against a combination REMEDY BY INJUNCTION. that was well calculated, in form, to thwart The statute reads: the purposes of the anti-trust act. The "SEC. 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with contract was in form a mere sale of stock' of jurisdiction to prevent and restrain viola two competing railway companies by the tions of this act; and it shall be the duty majority (in value) of the stockholders to of the several district attorneys of the one company, the defendant corporation, United States, in the respective districts, organized and given power to hold stock by under the direction of the Attorney -General to institute proceedings in equity to prevent the laws of New Jersey, which holding com pany issued its own stock to the formal and restrain such violations." The section provides further as to procedure vendors of the stock of the two railways. and authorizes a temporary injunction in After it had been determined that the direct effect was to restrain trade contrary to the proper case. Act, it was argued that Congress could not Plain as is the provision of the statute, the constitutionally interfere by injunction with Supreme Court in the Trans-Missouri case the ownership of stock and organization of a (166 U. S. 290, 342), where the action was under this section, found it necessary to corporation given power by a State to do the specific acts complained of. The court make this ruling: held that it could legally enjoin the holding "It is also argued that the United States have no standing in court to maintain this company from voting the stock and from bill, that they have no pecuniary interest in exercising any control over the railway the result of the litigation or in the question companies, and could enjoin the railway to be decided by the court. We think that companies from paying dividends to the the fourth section of the Act invests the holding company; the shield of a State Government with full power and authority to bring such an action as this, and if the corporation could not protect a combination facts be proved, an injunction should issue." illegal under a constitutional Federal law. Under this section of the statute, an " In short," said the court, " the Court may injunction has frequently been asked by make any order necessary to bring about parties other than the Government. The the dissolution or suppression of an illegal case most frequently quoted in this con combination " (p. 346). nection is Blindell r. I lagan (54 Fed. 40), SEIZURE OF PROPERTY. where an injunction was asked under the A remedy that has as yet assumed no im Act in a suit between individuals, and the court held: " it (the Act) gives no new right portance is that provided by Section 6 of to bring a suit in equity, and a careful study the statute : of the act has brought me to the conclusion "SEC. 6. Any property owned under any that suits in equity or injunction suits are contract or by any combination, or pursuant