Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1902-05-15

used. for. the purchase OF stock In other
corporations, not common carriers, which
this defendant might consider heneficial
to acquire. This defendant was not
formed as a scheme or device TO evade
the act of congress known as the anti
trust act" or any otner law whatever,
but solely for the purposes h~ereinbefore
stated.
Not Restrain Competition.
This defendant was not formed, nor
did any of those concerned in its fornIa-
ton, nor any of those who sold their
shares of stock to 1t. have any purpose
or intention to restrain trade or COM
merce, or to lessen competition between
said railway companies, or TO monopo-
Ike traffic in any manner whatever; nor
oar any such results follow from the
formation or operation OF this defen-
dant In point of fact, since the argani-
cation of this defendant, rates on the
defendant railway companies lines, M
Guiding rates to and from points COM
NOR TO both. have voluntarily been so
reduced as to decrease their earnings
by upwards of a million dollars an
.tually. For all interstats
on the lines of either the defendant rail-
way companies. except traffic beginning
and ending on tneIr own lines, respec-
lively, the rates are fixed by joint tariffs
with connecting lines. In respect TO all
sui lidlliS HSlNiSI ol the GtltllAdAls
companies has ever had, or can have,
any independent, rate-making power or
control of traffic or rates. All joint
tariffs with other companies to or from
points common to the lines OF the defen-
liant 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
amount of all other interstate traffic,
that is, traffic between common rSia.G
on the two roads. ,ghich is not COMPETE
tive both as TO rates and equally of SER
vice with other carriers having equal
rate-making power with them, is less
than 2 per cent of the total interstate
traffic OF the two companies. /,
The sale and transfer of property
whether in the form OF shares Of cor
porate stock or otherwise, has never
been adjudged to be, and is not, in viola
ton OF the act of ongre of July =,
1880, known as the ANTITRUST act"
This defendant is not a railroad COM
paly, n IL has no power to operate or
manage RAILWAYS, or make or control
rates of transportation, nor to monopolize
or restrain traffic of any kind. So far
from intending to violate any provision
of said act of congress, the persons who
were concerned in organizing this de-
PENDANT, and those who have sold their
shares to 1t, had every reason to believe
"SN NNN a. lhIN .NhSh ~ "SlS hoN
in any way in contravention of that act.
In common with the general public. they
were aware that during the eleven years
since the passing of that act, in many
instances, the stock of a competing rail
way company has been acquired by its
competitor or the shareholders thereof;
without objection from any branch OF
principal railways doing business through
out the country. This has been done
without objection from any branch OF
the government of the United States, and
has invariably proven beneficial to the
railway companies concerned and to
the public; and those making sales OF
stock to this defendant had no reason to
believe that such sales were open to any
legal objection or question Whatever.
Not to Control Rates.
This defendant was not organized for
the purpose of acquiring a majority of the
stock of either the Great Northern or
the Northern Pacific company, but merely
to purchase the stock of those who
wished to sell, as above stated; and was
not organized for the purpose OF controll-
ing railway rates in the slightest de-
gree, and has not had and cannot have
any such effect. The transactions referred
to in the petition have consisted in the
organization of a lawful corporation, and
the purchase OF property by II. All acts
done in relation to the organization of
this and in the conduct of its
business have been expressly authorized
by law, and nave had no effect whatever
to restrain trade or al aong the
several states or with foreign nations. II
these lawful transactions should hereafter
nave any effect to restrain trade or COM
merce among the several states or with
foreign nations (Which is hereby denied.
that effect would be merely Indirect, re-
mote. incidental and collateral, and not
intended and IS nothing compared with the
great expansion OF the volume OF inter-
state and international m which
was itnended. and which this defendant
believes is destined to result from the en-
terprise Of the two railway companies,
that eliminated in the purchase of the
Burlington stock.
And this defendant says:
1. The Antitrust" act was not In
tended to prevent or defeat an enterprise,
in aid of a great competitive interstate
ard international commerce., merely be-
cause such enterprise may carry with 1t
the possibility of incidental restraint upon
some commerce., trifing both as respects
territory and volume.
2. Nor was the act intended to unit
the power of the several states to create
/ uFporations, define their purposes, fix
| ne amount of their capital, and deter
Inc who may buy, own and sell their
thick.
| I'll. Otherwise construed, the act would
4 -