as in the former the "manifest object" was to do the business, and thus probably increase imports, it was held to be legal, an indirect restraint; whilst in the latter, as the purpose was to curtail the plaintiff's business, it was held to be a direct and, therefore, illegal restraint of that interstate trade which was a necessary incident of it.
And it must be so in each case.
All things are of necessity within the States, and are all subject to State jurisdiction; and the national jurisdiction does not attach, cannot attach, until, or unless, a use of them is intended against nationally protected right; but when that intent, that object is once reasonably inferred from the natural and real tendency of what is done, the national jurisdiction is as firmly established as that of the State was primarily.
The manufacture of rifles must be a purely State matter; but those who manufacture them with the object of shooting every one who dares exercise his freedom to trade between two States, would find the national jurisdiction reached him, notwithstanding every rifle was made in a single State, and as a purely intra-state matter.
No doubt the Debs riots in Chicago were a local offence, committed in each separate instance within a State, but their reasonable results being to stop national trade, the Supreme Court found no difficulty in stopping them. In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564.
Since, therefore, an inv~ion of a right which, in almost every conceivable case must be an intra-state right, is a necessity of an action under the Act, the argument that it is a defence to an action where
73
