The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-03-12
WEDNESDAY, MARCH u, 1859.
LAW AND TRUSTS.

The supreme SOuEl Oh LIS SAAAsSo Aos<A ~
has Just handed down decision, de-
clarins that the antitrust statute o.. uli-s
nois Is unconsdtuuon because the pro-
visions of the law e1empts agricultural
L products and live stock from Its opera
toe. 1t is said that the decision of the
court In effect annuls the antitrust
Jaws of Geor gia, Illinois. Indiana. Louis.
lana. Michigan, Mississippi, Montana,
Sepraska, Norti, Carolina. Tennessee and
Texas The trainers Of these laws knew
that 1t would not do to antagonize the
farmers and the stock-raisers, and so
1t was necessary TO exempt them from
its provisions It has been q most diff
ticult matter to frame any law Of this
character which would 10. hurt some
branch of business or another not aimed
at by the law. The difficulty grows out
OF this: When the corporate principles
IS once admitted in law it is almost inn
possible to draw the line between one cor
poratior ard another. If one corporation
Is to be legalized IN State there is moth.
ing to prevent another corporation from
doing business, and so those who have
undertaken to frame antitrust laws have
found themselves face to face with the
problem Of class legislation. We are
not surprised that the highest court in
The land has ruled that these discrimi-
mating laws, in the States mentioned, are
unconstitutional.
In the paper announcing this decision
Of the court IS also the announcement
that the Acknowledgement Of the United
States has caused to be flied in the Circuit
Court of the. United States for the dis
t,ict Of Minnesota a bill in equity in the
case Of the United States, complainant.
against The Northern Securities Com
pany, the Northern Pacific Railway Com
pany and others. It is recited in the
bill that those persons Who organized
The Northern Securities Company entered
into conspiracy to consolidate the
Northern Pacific and the Great Northern
!. Railroad companies and so form mono
poly, in violation Of the laws of Minne-
sofa and other States through which
these lines pass.
After reciiing these alleged facts, the
petition prays that the Northern Secu-3
titles Company, its stockholders, officers
etc, be perpetually enjoined from pur-.
chasing, voting, etc. any Of the shares
of the capital stock of either the North
ern Pacific or Great Northern Company's
and that a mandatory Injunction may is
sue, requiring the Northern Securities
on, art
1icates of stock issued by it in purchase
of or in exchange for any Of the shares
CT the capital stock of either of the said
railway companies, surrandering III re-
turn therefor the certificates of stock
in the respective railway companies in
lieu of which they were issued,
1t seems to laynan that this suit has
I,een brought in order to show the alb
! surdity Of the Sherman antitrust law.
The court is asked, in all seriousness, to
compel this Northern Securities Company
TO call in the stock which it has issued
In exchange for The railroad stocks in
.yofyed, which implies also that persons
who have received stock of the Northern
Eecurities Company in exchange for rail-
road stocks will be. required to return
their Northern Securities shares and
take back their railroad stocks.
1t is generally understood that the stock
of the Northern Securities Company is
largely held by. j. j. Hill. J. P. Morgan
and their associates, who are chiefly in-
ferested in seeing these two railroads
operated tremendously, and II they re-
fuse to give back their Northern, Sc
rurities stock to the company and take
In exchange the railroad stocks, what is
the court going to do about it? Sup
posing that the mandamus asked for is
granted. is it possible to enforce it?
1t is for these reasons that The Times
has said that the whole procedure seemed
to It to be absurd.
e