tire purpose, its entire existence, its everything, is not so much restraint of interstate trade as absolute control of interstate trade; contention to the contrary, under the admitted facts is subversive of reason, opposed to all precedent and unsustainable upon any ground. Possibly the opinion may be explained upon the ground that the members of the court were influenced by the fact that this great corporation was at that time intrenched, as I have said before, and that its agents, unknown to the court or the individual judges, might have impressed them, without alluding to this case, with the vast importance at that time of protecting the financial interests of the country, for we were then not yet beginning to rally from the crisis of '93. It may have been natural in times of financial panic and distress, for the court to go to an extreme in declining to interfere with organized wealth. Certain it is in the Addyston Pipe Company case, decided December 4, 1899, Mr. Justice Peckham delivering the opinion, the decision being unanimous, the Knight case is practically reversed, although in referring to that case, a distinction is sought to be made between manufacture only and actual sale. In view of the language of the Sherman Act, such a distinction is, to say the least of it, unique. A corporation can control the entire output of an article of universal use, and because there is no proof that they sell, they do not violate this Act. If they controlled the entire output and sold it, it would be in restraint of interstate trade, because the article was sold to every State, the output being of interstate, of international trade and consumption; if they controlled the entire output and sold nothing, there would be not only a restraint, but a destruction of interstate trade. The Federal Supreme Court gradually developed its conception of Federal authority through the Trans-Missouri Freight Association case, 166 U. S. Rep. 290; the Joint Traffic Association case, 171 U. S. Rep. 505, and gradually limited the State's authority through the South Carolina Dispensary cases, 165 U. S. Rep. 958; 165 U. S. Rep. 107; 170 U. S. Rep. 438, and the Iowa case, 170 U. S. Rep. 412, until at last its views may be considered as crystallized in the Addyston Pipe Company case. The most important decision in the matter of trusts is the Merger case; i. e., IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA, THIRD DIVISION. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, versus Complainant, NORTHERN SECURITIES COMPANY, Defendants. IN EQUITY, No. 789. A majority of the stock of each of the two great transcontinental lines, the Northern Pacific Railway Company and the Great Northern Railway Company, admittedly competitors for transcontinental traffic, had been transferred to the Northern Securities Company. Against this combination the proceeding was instituted by the Federal government; it was the most powerful combination the world had ever seen; a combination representing thousands of miles of railroads, hundreds of millions of dollars, colossal mental ability and all conceived and controlled by that transcendent genius, Pierpont Morgan. But the opinion sometimes expressed that Federal courts arealways dominated by money power was in this case annihilated. With the defendants represented by ability unsurpassed, with pressure of every possible sort brought to bear upon the court,. with the thought constantly before them that the influence of the Federal government was not really with the prosecution, the court had the courage to enforce the law and declare the combination of these railroads illegal. The defendants had the colossal confidence, the calm consciousness of power to say that they did not interfere with competition in interstate traffic; but the unanimous action of the court increased confidence in the proposition that regardless of all influences, the courts of the country will, on great issues, be found true to principles of law and the rights of the people. APPENDIX B. REPORT OF THE TREASURER. Z. D. Harrison, Treasurer, In account with the Georgia Bar Association. To cash balance from report of July 3, 1902.. By Voucher No. 1-W. F. Blue (stenographer). No. 3-J. W. Burke Co. (Printing). No. 4-Morning News.. No. 5-Atlanta Journal. 2-Chas. L. Davis... Examined and approved by Executive Committee, July 2, 1903. MARCUS W. BECK, Chairman.. APPENDIX C. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE THE TORRENS SYSTEM FOR THE REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES. Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Association: At the last meeting of the Georgia Bar Association, your committee was appointed by virtue of the following resolution. Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by the President of this Association, which committee shall investigate the Torrens System and similar systems for the registration of land titles, and report the result of their work to the next meeting of this Association; and in the event this committee shall determine to report in favor of a system of registration of land titles, a bill shall be prepared by the committee, embodying their views, which shall be printed and distributed amongst the members of the Association at the expense of the Association, at least thirty days before the next meeting of the Association; and the afternoon of the first day of the next meeting is hereby fixed for the consideration of the same. Your committee has not had any meeting for the consideration of the matters submitted in the resolution, but by a common understanding the preparation of this report was left to the Chairman. The views expressed in this report, while in the main coinciding with the views of the members of the committee, must be so taken and understood as that other members of the committee may be at liberty to dissent from any portion of this report as they may choose. The Torrens system for the registration of land titles takes its name from Sir Robert Richard Torrens, an Irishman, born in |