https://padlet.com/sarajasmine/uqz9tfa6ly9b en-us 2017-11-08 14:45:40 UTC 2017-11-09 04:27:40 UTC hello@padlet.com sarajasmine https://padlet.com/sarajasmine/uqz9tfa6ly9b/wish/204834661 THE PROBLEM:
The EC Knight Company had a 98% monopoly of the american sugar refining industry. They bought four refining companies in Philadelphia and so President Cleveland sued the company under the provisions of the Sherman-Antitrust Act in hopes to eliminate monopolies.
"Could the Sherman-Antitrust Act suppress a monopoly in the manufacture of a good, as well as its distribution?"

THE RESULT:
The 8-1 decision went in favor of the company. They stated that the refining of sugar was a necessity. On a local level, the refining of sugar was not subject to congressional regulation of interstate commerce.

WHY THEY RULED IN FAVOR OF THE COMPANY:
-Limited government power to control monopolies
-holding: "manufacturing is not considered an area that can be regulated by congress pursuant to the commerce clause."]]> 2017-11-08 14:47:18 UTC https://padlet.com/sarajasmine/uqz9tfa6ly9b/wish/204834661 https://padlet.com/sarajasmine/uqz9tfa6ly9b/wish/205125916 THE PROBLEM:
Some fisherman's vessels were taken by the Unites States Officials. The fisherman claimed that the international law did not count coastal fisherman to have their vessels taken as war prizes. The owners of the vessels had no idea about the war or the blockade. They did not resist or make any attempt to run. Nothing harmful was found on either of the vessels.
"Are coastal fishing vessels excluded from being prizes of war?"

THE RESULT:
The government stood by the existing law that coastal fishing vessels were not a part of being prizes for war. The existing international law had been in action dating all the way back to 1403 between Great Britain and France.

WHY THEY RULED IN FAVOR OF THE FISHERMAN:
Due to the law being in action for many years, there was no reason for it to have changed. They used the past to dictate the outcome. Back when King Henry IV of England signed a treaty with France to keep the coastal fishermen and their callings out of war and war prizes. ]]> 2017-11-09 03:46:06 UTC https://padlet.com/sarajasmine/uqz9tfa6ly9b/wish/205125916 https://padlet.com/sarajasmine/uqz9tfa6ly9b/wish/205128793 THE PROBLEM:
In 1883, President Arthur signed the Tarriff Act of March 3, 1883. This act required a tax to be charged on imported vegetables but not fruit. The Jon & Nix Company sued Edward Hedden, who was the collector of port of New York. They argued that a tomato was a fruit because of the seeds and that it should not be taxed.

THE RESULT:
The judgement was in favor of Hedden. They claimed that the tomato should be considered a vegetable because of commerce.

WHY THEY RULED IN FAVOR OF HEDDEN: 
They claimed that fruits and vegetables did not have any specific special meaning so they acted in favor of the commerce. ]]> 2017-11-09 04:08:14 UTC https://padlet.com/sarajasmine/uqz9tfa6ly9b/wish/205128793