The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-03-21
They Will Be Completed To-
day and the Case Be Left
With the Judges---Bunn
and Griggs for the De-
PENDANTS and T. B. Watson
for the Government.

curlueS company, on trial mere DeIore
the United States circuit court for the
district of Minnesota, practically closed
today and the case will be placed in the
hands of the four judges tomorrow.
During the three days of argument the
attorneys for the defendants occupied
nine hours and up to adjournment to-
night the government has taken five
hours for presentation of arguments
c. w Bum, of St. Paul, counsel for
the Northern Pacific, opened todays
session and Former Attorney General
Griggs closed the case for the Northern
Securities company The last~hour of
the session was occupied by Special
Counsel T. 3. Watson, of Pittsburg, in
closing the case for the government
He was still talking when court adj
journed until 10 o'clock tomorrow and
expects to conclude by noon. The IA
nous merger case will then be in the
hands Of the court for decision.
Mr. Bunn's Points.
Attorney Bum endeavored to show
that prior to this case there had never
been d suggestion that a consolidation
of railway interests was a violation of
the antitrust act of July 2, 1890. He
said in his argument:
Congress must exercise its power to
regulate commerce with reference to
the powers of the state 1t can no
more infringe on their reserved power
than they on its granted power. Con-
gress has not the constitutional power,
under the guise of regulating COM
merce, to prescribe the general rules
by or under which either real estate or
personal property, stocks or bonds may
be bought, owned, sold. passed by de-
scent or Willed within the states must
be admitted. Much less can congress
say that a man may not buy a piece of
property within a state, because he
may intend to use the same in manu-
factuTe or business carried on with the
intent to monopoliZe or restrict inter-
state commerce. No more can congress
restrict the right of partnerships or
corporations organized by virtue of
state laws to buy within the states,
either real, or personal property, in
Guiding stocks and bonds.
Again, if a contract, arrangement,
or combination does not restrain inter-
state trade, it is immaterial whether it
has the sanction Of state law or not A
state law must yield to the power in
congress. In the case at bar or in any
similar case, the transaction must be
treated as if fully authorized by state
law. For a holding company to own
the stock of competing interstate car
riers is plainly no more prohibited by
the act than for one interstate carrier
to purchase, lease, or otherwise control
the property of parallel or competing
carrier.
"All these conclusions are greatly
strengthened by the fact that every
thing which falls within the prohibit
af l. l.. i
thing denounced as Illegal is made
criminal. 1t is little short of absurd to
suppose that congress intended to
make it crime for a man to buy stock
in two competing interstate railway
companies; or, having stock in one, to
go in partnership with one who has
stock in another; or to promote the
formation of a corporation to acquire
stock in both; or, as director or officer
OF a corporation already formed to en-
gage IN acquiring such stock, or to
promote the consolidation of two COM
peung interstate carriers, or the lease
OF purchase by one of another 1t is
certainly not too much to require that
II congress had intended to make these
things crimes it should have said So
Mr.. Grggs Closes for Defendants.
In conclusion for the defendants.
former Attorney General Griegs as
rust act was to control the operation
OF individuals engaged in commerce
ana not to control the ownership of
corporations so engaged. He asserted
mat man or men can buy all the
property he or they have the capital to
purchase, that the law cannot limit the
amount OF that purchase and that the
antitrust act does not specifically saw
such purchase is a violation of its pro-
VISIONS. lie made the following points:
HSt-Ihe creation of railway corpor-
AuonS; the form of their corporate ar
SANITATION; the character and qualities
p Jhelr corporate stock; the routes which
LleM> railways may take; whether they
kIdu connect with other roads running in
me same general direction whether fhev
may or may not consolidate with parallel
Anes through different portions of the
State-aH these matters are and always
nave been, subjects Of state Jurisdiction
Second-Ihe acts of the defendants
BENG prima facie lawful, the burden of
PROOF Is upon the government to show
mat they We're as the attorney general
charges. not bona fide but mere formal
Of the Sherman act.
Third-Any restraint of trade or COM
IleIcG Wnlch may result from the acts
IdentaI only, and not covered by the act
'Fourth-If the Sherman act can he
~ construed t as to forbid the sale of stock
N TWO competing railroad corpora tons
10 one purchaser, then that act is an at
tempted interference on the part of con
gTeSS win transactions which are wholly
within the control of the states of the
Inlon and In that respect the act is I'M
constitutional.
"Fifth--But. assuming that congress
may, under the common clause of the
constitution and as a regulation of com
merce, restrain the states in the exercise
DI thelr prerogatives from permitting two
pr more corporations to which the states
nave given life from merging vet such
purpose on the part of the government
Dught TO be clearly and distinctly EXPRESS
ed, and not be found in the judicial In
depreciation of doubtful language cOnta in
Ed III penal statute.
Government AcquIescence.
"Sixth-Acquiescence by the govern
ment for more than eleven wears in the
actual merger and consolidation of MANY
important parallel and competing lines of
talfo3ds ana steamships engaged in in
terstate and international commerce has
given practical construction to the act
ot July Z, 1890 to the effect that it was
not intended to forbid, and does not for
Did. the natural processes of unifica ton
which are brought about under modern
methods of lease consolidation, merger
community of interest or ownership of
stock.
NO case has ever arisen in which a
disregard of that salutary rule of con-
struction would result in such wide
spread and trremediable injury to vest
ed interests as this. Not that any de-
cree which this court could make
against these defendants would mar
ticularly or radically affect their nron-
erty interests, but because the decision
once made that the Sherman act an
plies to such transactions as the mr.
chase, lease, merger of consolidation
or parallel lines of Transportation.
would render every such transaction
Tor the last thirteen years unlawful
of