The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1902-05-06

antitrust act or any other law what
ever, but solely for the purpose herein
It is further statee that the securities
company was not formed for the purpose
Of restricting trade or muZZliug competi-
ton between the two railway companies.
nor would such results follow from its
organization for, in point Of fact since
the securities company was formed, both
lines have voluntarily so reduced rates
as TO decrease their earnings by more
than N,000,oo0 annually. Tt is claimed
that for all interstate commerce the
rates are fixed by joint tariffs with con-
Meeting lines and il is stated further that
IN respect 10 al such traffic neither of
the defendant company has ever had
or can have, any Independent rate max
ing power or control of traffic or rates.
All joint tariffs with other companies
to or from points common to the lines of
the defendant railway companies. have
always been, and necessarily must be. the
same whether the traffic is carried by
one or the other of said companies The
total of all other interstate traffic that
Is, traffic between common points on the
two roads, which is not competitive, both
as to rates and quality OF service with
other carriers having equal rate making
power with them, is less than per cent
Of the total interstate traffic OF the two
companies.
It is maintained that the sale and trans
Ter of property, whether shares of stock
or otherwise, has never been and cannot
be adJudged a violation Of the sO-called
antitrust act. The securities company
Is not railway company and has no
power TO operate railways or control
rates or restrain traffic.
Precedent Set by Time.
The answer continues: so far from
intending 10 violate any provision of said
act of congress, the persons who were
concerned in organizing this defendant,
al rr-Nn. lr-nI HNaF-- -nn-
il, had every reason to believe that such
sales We're not in any way I'm contra
ventiOn of that act. In common with the
general public, they were aware that dur
ing the eleven years since the passage Of
that act, in many instances the stock
OF competing railway company has
been acquired by its competitor or the
shareholders thereof, such acquisition in
Guiding many of the principal railways
doing business throughout the country.
This has been done without objection
of any branch of the government of the
United States and has invariably proven
beneficial TO the railway companies con-
cerned and 70 the pubic, and those max
ing sales Of stock to this defendant had
no reason to believe that such sales were
open TO any legal objection or question
whatsoever.
The purpose Of the organization is re-
viewed briefly and the answer continues:
'An acts done in relation to the or
ganiZatlOn of this defendant and in the
Dressly authorized by law and have had
no effect whatever to restrain trade or
commerce among the several states or
with foreign nations If these lawful
transactions should hereafter have any
effect to restrain trade or commerce
among the several states or with foreign
nations (Which is hereby denied, that
effect would be merely indirect, remote,
incidental and collateral, and not in
tended. and as nothing compares with the
Hnafr of rH1IH Of aaaf
state and international commerce which
are intended and which this defendant
believes is destined to result from the
enterprise of the two railway companies,
that eliminated in the purchase Of the
Burlington stock.
Not Intended to Apply.
''And this defendant says:
THE antitrust act was not intend
ed TO prevent or defeat an enterprise in
aid of a great competitive interstate and
international commerce, merely because
such enterprise may carry with ii the
possibility Of incidental restraint upon
some commerce, trifling both as respects
territory and volume
'2-NOr was the act intended to limit
the power of the several states to create
corporations, define their purposes fix
the amount OF their capital and determine
Whn may buy. cwn and sell their stock
'3-OtherWise construed. the act would
be unconstitutional, because: The power
to regulate commerce with foreign nations
and among the states does not give con-
gTess the power TO regulate any Of the
matters above mentioned in respect to
corporations created by the states, and
because, Persons may not be deprived Of
their property without due process Of
law by taking from them the right TO
sell #, as their interest may suggest %
Attention Is called 10 the defect of the
necessary parties defendant, there being
over 1880 shareholders, few Of whom
were connected with forming the secur-
tiles company, and in whose absence from
the litigation il is claimed. no decree
can be made effecting their rights In
conclusion. the defendant denies all and
all manner of unlawful combination and
confederacy whe~ewith il is by the said
petition charged il there be any auega-
tons 10 such effect not already fully dis
posed of and answered