Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/235

 206

The Green Bag

upon Congress. The opinion reiterates machines to one Christina B. Skou, and re-enforces the general principles with a so-called "license restriction" to laid down by Chief Justice Taney in the effect that she should use with the Luther v. Borden, 7 Howard, 1, and machine only the stencil paper, ink and Chief Justice Fuller, in Taylor v. Beck- other supplies of the company's own ham, 178 U. S. 548, in the distinction manufacture. The bill was drawn drawn between justiciable controversies against Sidney et al., a New York co and political questions. partnership, to restrain them from aiding The Court, Chief Justice Fuller writ and abetting Miss Skou in violating the ing the opinion, said that the contention restriction by using other ink than the of the plaintiff in error that the tax unpatented article supplied by the Dick levied upon it under a law enacted by Company. means of the popular initiative, without The majority opinion was written by recourse to the legislature, was void, Mr. Justice Lurton (McKenna, Holmes, was an attack on the state itself, that is, and Vandevanter, JJ., concurring). on the framework and political character The Court held it to be within the of the government by which the statute right of the patentee to suppress articles levying the tax was passed. The Court protected by patent or to sell them suggested that this view, if consistently under restrictive conditions. This right maintained, would imply power in the to sell under restrictions is a part of the federal judiciary, unless anarchy were monopoly sought to be established by to ensue, to build by judicial action, the patent laws under the authority of upon the ruins of the previously estab the Constitution, said the Court, and lished government, a new one, a right an infringement of the conditions is which, by its very terms, implies the essentially an infringement of the patent power to control the legislative depart right, and redress may therefore be ment of the government of the United sought under the patent laws, the States. This statement showed the general law to the contrary notwith essential fallacy, said the Court, of the standing, and the public policy of the plaintiff's contention. The case was state being what it may be. A dissenting opinion was written by therefore dismissed for want of juris the Chief Justice, with which Hughes diction. and Lamar, JJ., concurred. Chief Monopolies. Right of Patentee to Justice White declared the effect of the Control Sales Through Restrictive Cove ruling to be "to destroy in a very large nants — Infringement of Patent by Breach measure the judicial authority of the of Such Covenants. U. S. states by unwarrantedly extending the federal judicial power," and to impose The case of Sidney et al. v. A. B. on the federal courts the duty "to test Dick Co., decided by the United States the rights and obligations of the parties Supreme Court March 11, involved the not by the general law of the land, in question of the right of the holder of a accord with the Conformity act, but by patent to control the market for his the provisions of the patent law, even patented goods by means of a restric although the subject considered may not tive licenses issued with each article be within the embrace of that law, sold. thus disregarding the state law, over The Dick Company, patentees of a "rotary mimeograph," sold one of these throwing, it may be, the settled public