New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-11-13
n. P. MERGER HEARING.
EFFORT TO SHOW THAT CONGRESS
KNEW OF COMBINATIONS BEFORE
ANTITRUST LEGISLATION.

ANTITRUST LEGISLATION.
The hearing was continued yesterday morning in
the Federal Building in the suit of the United
States to test the Great Northern-Northern Pacific
Railroad merger. The contention of the govern
is that the merger is in violation of the Sher-
man Antitrust law, and is otherwise in restraint
Of trade.
A large array Of counsel was in attendance when
Frederick G. Ingersoll. the special examiner ap-
pointed to take testimony, opened the proceedings
For the government John X Richards, Solicitor
General for the United States. and w R. Day and
J. NJ. Beck, assistants to Attorney General Knox
appeared. For the defendants, John W. Griggs
ex-Attorney General Of the United States; Francis
Lynde Stetson, David WILCOX W. P. Clough, NJ. D.
Grover, c. ". Bum and George B. Young were
present The three last named are from St. Paul.
Mr. Griggs. who made the first argument, asserted
that for years prior TO 1890 many Of the principal
railway companies Of the country had acquired all
majority OF the shares OF the stock OF compel
ing railway companies, had acquired by pur-
chase or lease the control Of parallel and competing
lines Of railway and that this state Of things was
a matter OF common knowledge, was reported to
the Interstate Commerce Commission and by it to
Congress. and was known to Congress at the time
of the passage Of the Sherman Antitrust act. and
that Congress old not intend by that act TO declare
those transactions-many of them expressly author
lied by State legislatures-illegaL
In support of his contention Mr.. Grggs said he
would present in evidence with proof. If the gov
eminent demanded It, the official reports confirm
ing the statement made to the Interstate Commerce
Commission prior to January, 1901
MI Richards objected that the reports were i'm
material and irrelevant. Under the rule the ex-
aniner has no power TO rule disputed questions.
and all the matter went to the record for subTns-
sion later to the court Of record
Mr.. Griggs announced that he desired TO put in
some documentary evidence and that the only
testimony he would present would be Introductory
OF the documents and maps. Messengers were sent
for the papers, and there delay OF nearly an
hour before they returned with an immense leather
portmanteau filled with books and parchments and
almost a CARLOAD Of reports and maps
Captain John P. Meany. editor and manager OF
'Poor's Manual OF Railroads" was the first wit
ness called Mr.. Richards objected 10 his testi-
mony on the ground that what was intended TO be
proved by his testimony was Irrelevant
Judge Young. OF the defence replied to Mr. Rich
ards. He said the defence purposed 10 show the
facts the ownership Of railroads and the
knowledge Of Congress Of those facts before the
passage OF the Antitrust law. He elaborated on
the statement made at the opening by Mr.. Griggs.
gave the history Of some OF the roads as far back
1870 and told Of early combinations OF interest
and joint ownership OF stock.
You can't go to Boston Judge Young said.
lover the New-York New Haven and Hartford
Railroad without riding over several roads
independent. but now part OF a single system.
Within year the NewYork Central and Hudson
River Railroad has into control OF nearly half
of the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern. You
can't RIDE out or the city or W washington to-day
and reach your destination without riding
line built by company and controlled by an
other company"
Judge Young argued that it was competent to
show by witnesses that all the things he asserted
in the knowledge OF Congress- as proof that
no law had veen violated by the Northern Sc
curities merger, which he said was legal and
lawful combination
Mr.. Richards replied that the Antitrust law
doubtedly referred 20 railroads and railroad COM
binations and that IL other railroad companies had
entered into such combination 70 restrain trade.
before the passage OF the Sherman act. that
fact no defence for any present violation OF
the law.
If We come down 70 the operations of the rail-
roads since 1880" Mr.. Richards said, IFS II fair
argument 20 submit that because certain comhina-
tons IN restraint OF trade have not been prose-
cuted no such combination should be prosecuted?
I believe the Sherman law has been enforced
far It could be. 1t never judicially decided
that the Antitrust law applied TO railroads until
the decision in the Joint Traffic matter II would
be fair defence here 20 show that no combination
not a defence to present hero the entire railroad
Eysn IL il the defence should show another case
on all fours with this. that would only mean that
should permit another violation Of the law
make the solicitor General Understand our posi-
ton. We are aware that II we plead guilty to "A
violation of the law cannot claim to be eX-
oef1Ieu pa U.S. GIe59 lre uois rb Ie nsti
t ere hGt RigdIlns 5e unS ac p ,b ne ,r, f I'm
petng companies by financial corporation is a
violation of the Sherman We expect by our
evidence TO show that the Northern Securities
Company has done and is doing nothing in viola
ton Of law or in restraint OF trade"
Captain Meany told in detail how the facts
published in 'Poor's Manual compiled. and
Of the efforts made to insure absolute accuracy.
Speaking Of the circulation Of the MANUAL Cap
tain Meany said that copies were sent so all pub
lie Libraries and the departments Of the national
government, which subscribed for It.
There Is none in the Department Of Justice
Mr. Richards said and we can't buy one. II
takes all money TO prosecute the trusts
tLaughterD
To Judge Young Captain Meanv said that adj
proofs Of the Manual" submitted TO
all the railroad companies for inspection and
Tection before the publication of the volume. All
corrections made by the companies. he said
investigated by the publishers.
After the witness excused Mr. CirgEs put In
evidence the Manual" for the years from 1871 10
1901. inclusive and the statistics of Railways OF
the United States" published by the Interstate
Commerce Commissions 1t agreed that a
written transcript Of the parts Of the volumes
CURED by the defence should be prepared a later
time
At l 30 o'clock an adjournment was taken until
II o'clock November Il.