U.S.+vs.+E.C.+Knight

United States V. E.C. Kinght

I. This case was heard in October 4, 1894 1/1

II. In 1890 Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to disperce SPELLING the monopolies in NO CAPS Transportation, Industy, and Commerce. This act specifically outlawed "every contract, combination...or conspiracy, in restraint of trade", basically making monopolization illegal in America. By purchasing stock in four refineries from Philadelphia, E. C. Knight Company gained controll over 98% of the sugar refining in the U.S., a monopoly! The Goverment Challenged E. C. Knight Company on the grounds that they were breaking the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. GOOD 5/5

III. Did Congress over step their boundries under the Commerce clause when the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed? WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS THE LAW CONSTITUTIONAL? 4.5/5

IV. The Supreme Court Ruled 8 to 1 against the goverment, that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act had not been violated by E. C. Knight Companies monopoly on sugar refineries in the U.S. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act only mentions transportation, industry, and commerce, but says nothing about manufacturing. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act had no jurisdiction over E. C. Knight Company due to the fact that they were a manufacturing company, which does effect transprotation, industry, and commerce, but the company didn't monopolize transportation, industry, and commerece. "The trust did not lead to control of interstate commerce and so "affects it only incidentally and indirectly."" (The Oyez Project, November 27, 2009) WHAT DID IT SAY ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW? WAS THE LAW ITSELF CONSTITUTIONAL? 4.5/5

V. The significance of the courts ruling in this case is that it greatly weakened the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. it showed that as hard as the goverment may try it is impossible to stop economical expansion and that it is terribly difficult pass an act or law that is flexible enough to give people freedom but strict enough maintain order under the constitution. 5/5

VI.

LABEL PICTUER 1.5/2

VII. The Oyez Project, United States v. E.C. Knight Co. , 156 U.S. 1 (1895) available at: ([|http://oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1894/1894_675]) (last visited Friday, November 27, 2009).

Fuller, C. J. (1895, January 1). //United states v. e. c. knight company//. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0156_0001_ZO.html


 * United States v. E.C. Knight Company**. (2009). In //Encyclopædia Britannica//. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: [|**http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/617781/United-States-v-E-C-Knight-Company**]

United States v. E. C. Knight - Further Readings

Read more: [|United States v. E. C. Knight - Further Readings] []

Ly, S, & Myers, J. (1999). //Advanced placement us history review//. Retrieved from http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/cph/3a50000/3a53000/3a53200/3a53298r.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/schools/paintbranchhs/departments/sstudies/apus/outline.html&usg=__45FkDCuGnTUQn7PQFWl4xpPZcyY=&h=640&w=514&sz=36&hl=en&start=1&sig2=PF6NWENL4rGRzwDSVUMXmw&um=1&tbnid=wYqeRWMUUihv8M:&tbnh=137&tbnw=110&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dunited%2Bstates%2Bv.%2Be.c.%2Bknight%2Bco.%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1&ei=dC0QS6LrEM2XtgfBuKDrCg

2/2

24/25 = 96% (A) SEE COMMENTS ABOVE! GOOD JOB