(1895) (Court did not apply Sherman Anti-trust act to break up Sugar Monopoly because this was a regulating of manufacturing, not commerce).

i.  Gov’t argued that production of a ncessity of life (sugar) involved commerce.

ii.  Court holds that the power to manufacture sugar involves control over its distribution-but this is secondary and not primary control. The exercise of power, therefore, is secondary to commerce.  Commerce not part of manufacture.  Sugar manufacturing bore no relation to interstate commerce, and the Sherman Act cannot be applied.

iii.  Dissent – argued that there was a direct impact of manufacturing on commerce.