United States v. E. C. Knight Co.
| United States v. E.C. Knight Co. | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 4, 1894 Decided January 21, 1895 |
|
| Full case name | United States v. E.C. Knight Co. |
| Citations | 156 U.S. 1 (more)
15 S.Ct 249 (1895)
|
| Holding | |
| Manufacturing is not considered an area that can be regulated by Congress pursuant to the commerce clause. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Fuller, joined by Brewer, Brown, Field, Gray, Shiras, White, Jackson |
| Dissent | Harlan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec 8. | |
United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895), also known as the "Sugar Trust Case," was a United States Supreme Court case that limited the government's power to control monopolies. The case, which was the first heard by the Supreme Court concerning the Sherman Antitrust Act, was argued on October 24, 1894 and the decision was issued on January 21, 1895.
In 1892, the American Sugar Refining Company gained control of the E. C. Knight Company and several others which resulted in a 98% monopoly of the American sugar refining industry. President Grover Cleveland, in his second term of office (1893–1897), directed the national government to sue the Knight Company under the provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act to prevent the acquisition. The question the court had to answer was, "could the Sherman Antitrust Act suppress a monopoly in the manufacture of a good, as well as its distribution?"
The court's 8-1 decision, handed down on January 21, 1895 and written by Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller, went against the government. Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented.
The court held "that the result of the transaction was the creation of a monopoly in the manufacture of a necessary of life" but ruled that it "could not be suppressed under the provisions of the act". The court ruled that manufacturing—in this case, refining—was a local activity not subject to congressional regulation of interstate commerce. Fuller wrote:
That which belongs to commerce is within the jurisdiction of the United States, but that which does not belong to commerce is within the jurisdiction of the police power of the State. . . . Doubtless the power to control the manufacture of a given thing involves in a certain sense the control of its disposition, but . . . affects it only incidentally and indirectly.
...
Wikipedia