What did the Supreme Court of the United States decide in the anti-trust case of U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co. in 1895?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

This question asks about the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895).

First, note that the provided data shows an answer option but does not list any answer choices beyond that single option. Because there are no alternative options to evaluate, I will explain the foundational issue and then discuss the given option and why it aligns (or does not align) with the historical ruling.

Context: In U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co., the Court considered the reach of the Sherman Antitrust Act (which regulates commerce to prevent restraints of trade) in a case involving the American Sugar Refining Company, which controlled a large share of sugar refining in the United States. The key constitutional principle at stake was whether Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce extended to manufacturing activities that occurred within one state and did not directly involve interstate commerce.

Option presented: 'The federal government's power of interstate commerce did not apply to E.C. Knight Co. since the company only refined in one state.'
- This statement is consistent with the actual ruling. The Supreme Court held that manufacturing (refining sugar, in this case) was not itself commerce and therefore not subject to regulation under the federal commerce power in the Sherman Act. The Court reasoned that although the end product (sugar) might be involved in interstate commerce, the activity of manufacturing within a single state did not constitute interstate commerce by itself, so the company’s actions could not be enjoined under the Sherman Act on that basis.

Why this reasoning is correct: The Court drew a distinction between manufacturing (which it treated as local activity) and commerce (which travels across state lines). The majority opinion, led by Justice Fuller, held that the mere accumulation of stock or market control in a manufacturing process did not automatically render the conduct subject to federal antitrust regulation under the commerce power. This established a narrow reading of the Sherman Act with respect to monopolies arising from manufacturing in one state.

Why this option might be considered correct in light of the case: The key takeaway often highlighted is that federal power under the Commerce Clause did not reach the Egg‑like problem here because the core activity (manufacturing/refining) occurred intrastate, even though the product would later be sold across state lines. Thus, the option’s phrasing matches the historical outcome described in the decision.

If there were additional options (which are not provided), each would need evaluation along these lines:
- An option claiming the federal government could regulate the manufacturing process intrastate would be incorrect, as the Court’s decision limited the Commerce Clause reach for manufacturing activities not directly involving interstate commerce.
- An option suggesting that the case found a broad application of the Sherman Act to all monopolies in manufacturing would be incorrect, since the ruling constrained the Act’s reach in this particular manufacturing scenario.
- An option asserting that the decision hinged on stock ownership or corporate structure rather than on the activity (manufacturing within a single state) would be an inaccurate interpretation of the Court’s reasoning in this case.

In summary, given the single option provided, that option accurately reflects the 1895 ruling: the federal government’s interstate commerce power did not apply to E.C. Knight Co. because the company’s refining occurred within one state, making the conduct non‑jurisdictionally subject to the Sherman Act’s reach in that context.

HIST1120850.1255 Week 2 (Chapters 17, 18, and 19)

What did the Supreme Court of the United States decide in the anti-trust case of U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co. in 1895?

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Which of the following does the Sherman Antitrust Act address?

Which piece of legislation governs price fixing in the United States?

The goal of the FTC is to regulate the funeral home industry so that it reduces competition between funeral homes.

A firm can be expressly prohibited from engaging in certain business activities or can be broken into two or more competing firms when it

Antitrust laws prohibit unfair, anticompetitive practices by business.

Which of the following specifically prohibits monopolies?

In the United States, anti-trust laws might not allow:

Which US agency is responsible for preventing anticompetitive conduct?

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler