U.S.+v.+E.C.+Knight+Co.


 * 1. Case Title:** U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co.


 * 2. Date:** January 21st, 1895


 * 3. Chief Justice:** __Melville Weston Fuller__- He was born in Augusta, ME, February 11, 1833. He went to Bowdoin College and graduated in 1853. He also attended Harvard Law School for lectures. He was democratic and was elected into the House of Representatitves in 1862. President Grover __Cleaveland__ elected ( **appointed** ) him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1888. He died in 1910, which was, obviously, his last year as Chief Justice. He had two major opinions during his time as Chief Justice: he stated that the federal income tax of 1894 was unconstitutional; he also interpreted the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. **How did he interpret it?**




 * 4. Documents related to the case:**
 * **Sherman Anti-Trust Act**- Stated that no company could monopolize interstate trade, or commerce.


 * **Commerce Clause-** Stated that the government had the right to regulate commerce within the states and Indian tribes.


 * 5. Summary of Case:** Basically, the E.C. Knights corporation controlled over 98% of the sugar business, making them a monopoly. The U.S. believed that they had violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by becoming a monopoly, so they took them to court. The E.C. Knights won the case because they did not violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which stated that no company could monopolize trade or commerce. The E.C. Knights did not violate the Sheran Anti-Trust Act because they were in the refining industry which fell under the category of manufacturing. Manufacturing was not considered trade or commerce. **Who took them to court in 1895? Cleveland was usually very pro-business and laissez faire.**


 * 6. Main Issue/Argument:** The main argument was that the E.C. Knights Co. was a monopoly because they controlled over 98% of the sugar refining industry. The E.C. Knights argued back that the government did not have the constitutional right to enact the Sherman Anti-Trust Act because of the Commerce Clause.


 * 7. Decision Rendered by Court + Vote:** The E.C. Knights won the case. All of the Chief Justices voted for the E.C. Knights except for one. Chief Justice Melville Fuller claimed that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was by all means constitutional, but it didn't apply in this case. This is because sugar refining was considered manufacturing, so it did not apply to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Also, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was not applicable because the sugar refineries involved intrastate commerce, and the Sherman __Anti-TrustAct__ only applied to the monopolization of interstate commerce.


 * 8. Who Voted What, Dissenting, and Why:** All Justices voted for E.C. except one. Eight of the Justices voted for E.C. because they agreed that the E.C. Knights Co. didn't violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Chief Justice John Harlan wrote a dissent because he believed that it was still a monopoly and that it therefore violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. **Elaborate on these votes!**


 * 9. Who Were the Members of the Court at that Time, and For How Many Years Did They Serve:**
 * Chief Justice Melville Fuller; Served 7 previous years.
 * Chief Justice Stephen Field; Served 32 previous years.
 * Chief Justice Horace Gray; Served 13 previous years.
 * Chief Justice David Brewer; Served 5 previous years.
 * Chief Justice Henry Brown; Served 4 previous years.
 * Chief Justice George Shiras Jr.; Served 3 previous years.
 * Chief Justice Howell Jackson; Served 2 previous years.
 * Chief Justice Edward White; Served 1 previous year.
 * Chief Justice John Harlan; Served 8 previous years.


 * 10. What is Your Personal Opinion of the Case:** In my opinion, I believe that the U.S. should have won the case. Although the E.C. Knights corporation didn't technically violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, they were still a monopoly. So, I think that the E.C. Knights should have lost because they were a monopoly and they controlled over 98% of the sugar refining industry and that is unfair to other businesses. **Do you think it's baloney that refining isn't part of trade or commerce?**


 * 11. What if This Case had Gone the Other Way:** If this case had gone the other way the E.C. Knights Co. would have lost a lot of money, but other than that I don't think that anything would have happened. This is because the E.C. Knights simply found a loophole in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Other sugar refining businesses would have made more money had the U.S. won, but this case really didn't affect everyday society. **Lower prices?**

[] "United States v. E.C. Knight Co." //The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law | A Multimedia Archive of the Supreme Court of the United States//. Oyez Inc, 14 Feb. 2005. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. . [] "Melville Fuller Biography - Facts, Birthday, Life Story - Biography.com." //Famous Biographies & TV Shows - Biography.com//. A&E Televison Networks, Fall 1996. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. . [] "Regents Case Summary." //Your Page Title//. Case Summaries Inc. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. .

**5.5/7 Biblio - alphabetical, plus only 3 sources?** **23/28 Content - a little sparse on the content - each section could use expanding w/ additional explanation.** **5/5 Organization**

**33.5/40 Total**