The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-03-14

y questions of the New
York Sun, asked in con-
neCtion with the governments bill of
| equity against the Northern Securities
company, namely, Cannot any citi2t'n,
| for example Mr.. John Pierpont Nor
| gan, buy and possess shares, to the eX-
| tent of his purse, in the Northern Pa
ciic railroad or in the Great Northern
| railroad, or in both? And cannot any
| other citizen, say the Northern Secur-
tiles company of New Jersey, do the
same?"
The Philadelphia Press answers these
questions more fully and brings, clearly
before the public the important issues
in this litigation. Says the Press
Corporate rights as to holding prop
erty differ, as all know, from the rights
of natural persons. a man can own all
the property he can legally acquire No
limit is set by law to his holdings. A.
corporation, If the law choose can only
have Il certain amount of capital, and
the amount of property Il corporation
can hold is, in many CGsCs, du'y linn
tied anl may always be limited by it's
creator. The right of Mr.. Pierpont
Morgan to own property is therefore
not the same in kind or in degree as
that of the Northern Securities COM
pany Whether under our system the
right of a man to hold property could
or could not be limited has never been
raised. But there is no doubt that New
Jersey could limit the right of the
Northern Securities comp;iny to in
crease its estate indefinitely Whether
congress could limit or has limited the
right of state corporation to own
shares in corporations competing in
interstate commerce, thus eliminating
competition. is another issue.
THE paramount issue, therefore,
which underlies this epoch making suit
is whether the state corporation, or
ganized as mere holding company
or corporate makeshift, can grow to
any size, own any amount Of property,
or eliminate any competition by buy
ing the competing corpoin tions, or
whether congress can limit Yr regulate
this ownership in matters lelatine. to
interstate commerce. All issues are
small by, the side of this issue. SO far
as the trust and railroad cCAporations
are concerned, nothing coulk be worse
than IL decision that congress can do
nothing. Let this case show uhat, us
the attorney generals bill ayei's: The
entire railway system of thR country
may be absorbed, merged and cousoli-
dated, thus placing the puhhc at tho
absolute mercy of the holding c0rpor-
ation,' and drastic legislation is car-
tain. Competition may be wise or ,ln-
wise in transportation; but it is the
law and not capital which must decide
when competition is to cease, to the
end that this may be u land ruled not
by men, however rich, able sl d enter
prising, but by law"
Looked at in this light it r. In be seen
that the questions raised j'the GOV
ernment's suit so to the velE heart of
'he so-calIed trust or cqmbinoton
issue. Is it now lawful for ohe corpor
alton to acquire control of tan entire
industry? II ii is. should ii he? If If
Is not should 1t be, and ON what terms?
The sweep Of such AN inquiry is al
most infinite in its bearing upon pres
ent business conditions: but it is ohyi-
ously essential that the power of GOV
ernment in these premises should be
defined.