IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buhirw/v53y1979i03p304-342_03.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Knight Sugar Decision of 1895 and The Modernization of American Corporation Law, 1869–1903

Author

Listed:
  • McCurdy, Charles W.

Abstract

No conviction has been more a part of the standard interpretation of American history in the twentieth century than the belief that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of late-nineteenth-century decisions bearing on government-business relations, reflected the conservative reaction that seemed to mark the depression of the 1890s. But Professor McCurdy demonstrates that in its 1895 decision in the case of United States v. E. C. Knight Company, which drew a distinction between manufacturing and trade in defining interstate commerce, the Court was not trying to shield a vast, monopolistic aggregation of wealth (Henry O. Havemeyer's “Sugar Trust”) from the will of the people that it be broken up under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. The decision, in fact, was not the beginning of a conservative reaction, but the last effort in a thirty-year attempt to maintain a role for state jurisdiction over the behavior of chartered enterprises.

Suggested Citation

  • McCurdy, Charles W., 1979. "The Knight Sugar Decision of 1895 and The Modernization of American Corporation Law, 1869–1903," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(3), pages 304-342, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:buhirw:v:53:y:1979:i:03:p:304-342_03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007680500030464/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lamoreaux, N., 2019. "The Problem of Bigness: From Standard Oil to Google," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1963, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buhirw:v:53:y:1979:i:03:p:304-342_03. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bhr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.