I will suppose further that every step is taken, from the beginning, with the single intent of ending competition between the companies. ","The act has reference only to that trade or commerce which exists, or may exist, among the several States or with foreign nations, and has no application whatever to any other trade or commerce. Justice WHITE delivered a dissenting opinion in which the CHIEF JUSTICE and PECKHAM and HOLMES, JJ., concurred; Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered a dissenting opinion in which the CHIEF JUSTICE and WHITE and PECKHAM, JJ., concurred.I cannot assent to all that is said in the opinion just announced, and believe that the importance of the case and the questions involved justify a brief statement of my views.First, let me say that, while I was with the majority of the court in the decision in.I think that, in some respects, the reasons given for the judgments cannot be sustained. Nearly all the railways in the country have been constructed under state authority, and it cannot be supposed that they intended to abandon their power over them as soon as they were finished. Still further, is it asked, generally, whether the organization or ownership of railroads is not under the control of the States under whose laws they came into existence? The two lines, main and branches, about 9,000 miles in length, were and are parallel and competing lines across the continent through the northern tier of States between the Great Lakes and the Pacific, and the two companies were engaged in active competition for freight and passenger traffic, each road connecting at its respective terminals with lines of railway, or with lake and river steamers, or with seagoing vessels.Prior to 1893, the Northern Pacific system was owned or controlled and operated by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation organized under certain acts and resolutions of Congress. Not every act done in furtherance of an unlawful end is an attempt or contrary to the law. These contracts are not articles of commerce in any proper meaning of the word. "Congress may place restrictions and limitations upon the right of corporations created and organized under its authority to acquire, use and dispose of property. It may well be assumed that Congress, when enacting that statute, shared the general apprehension that a few powerful corporations or combinations sought to obtain, and, unless restrained, would obtain such absolute control of the entire trade and commerce of the country as would be detrimental to the general welfare. In the case just referred to, the court does not say, and it is not to be supposed that it will ever say, that any power exists in a State to prevent the enforcement of a lawful enactment of Congress, or to invest any of its corporations, in whatever business engaged, with authority to disregard such enactment or defeat its legitimate operation. 193 U.S. 197. fearlessly unmasked the corrupt alliance between big business and municipal government,shocked nation with series in Cosmopolitan titled "The Treason of the Senate" 1906, charged that seventy five of ninety senators did not represent the people at all but the railroads and trusts. The public interest must succumb to it, for it has left no competition free to correct its baleful influence. There is a natural inclination to assume that it was directed against certain great combinations, and to read it in that light. The objection of the common law to them was primarily on the contractor's own account. It hits "every" contract or combination of the prohibited sort, great or small, and "every" person who shall monopolize or attempt to monopolize, in the sense of the act, "any part" of the trade or commerce among the several States. It would be extraordinary if the court, in executing the act of Congress, could not lay hands upon that company and prevent it from doing that which, if done, will defeat the act of Congress. If it were otherwise, the Government and its laws might be prostrated at the feet of local authority.It is said that, whatever may be the power of a State over such subjects, Congress cannot forbid single individuals from disposing of their stock in a state corporation, even if such corporation be engaged in interstate and international commerce; that the holding or purchase by a state corporation, or the purchase by individuals, of the stock of another corporation, for whatever purpose, are matters in respect of which Congress has no authority under the Constitution; that, so far as the power of Congress is concerned, citizens or state corporations may dispose of their property and invest their money in any way they choose, and that, in regard to all.such matters, citizens and state corporations are subject, if to any authority, only to the lawful authority of the State in which such citizens reside, or under whose laws such corporations are organized.