The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1903-08-14
hers are none.
Not il Purahasar.

sold to it stock Of both railroad COM
But the complainant contends that
ha nsn ab 5me Northern Mort Securities company
trolling majority Of the stock Of the
Northern Pacific company, It became the
within the meaningeof that word as used
N the act Of 1874, and became thereby
diisapled from acquiring, as it afterwards
ofu +ha GGG raet majority OF the stock
q railroad BY buying ali the stock am
e,ted to fsspter st. General Laws Of MIN
railroad corporation may lease or pur.
chase Or become the owner or control or
nold stock Of any other railroad, when
nected together and form a continuous
line with or without branches. But in
that case the purchase q the stock would
De by Ry a. railroad CORPORATION having GO
from the authority to do so either ex-
pressly or implicitly granted by this stat
ute; and such railroad could therefore
ment and operation Of the railroad, the
| stock OF which 1t had 80 acquired.
PeersaIi Case.
II am also cited to the case Of Pear
san vs.. Great Northern Railway. 1e1 U.
The case is far. from sustaining tho
idea that II single investor in railroad
stocks whether natural person or q
corporation without railroad franchises.
| should acquire by purchase majority
or the whole lof the stock Of both the
Northern Pacific company and the Great
consolidation Of those two companies, or
that such purchase would have any
power to manage or operate the railroads
| OF both or either of said railroad COM
TN the case under consideration the
| court Is careful to note the difference in
effect between the purchase Of controll-
corporation by a rival railroad corpora
ton which might control, manage and OPP
crate It, and a purchase Of the Same
though holding whatever amount Of stock
In the same rival railroad company. The
Doubtless these stockholders (of the
acquire by individual purchases ma
jority. or even the whole Of the stock
Of the reorganized (Northern. Pacific)
ultimate control, but the Companies
would still remain separate corporations
| with no interests. as such, In common.
1T follows that as the. Northern Sc
in the stocks Of these railroad corpora
tons, not being Itself railroad corpora
ton. and being without franchise, power
crate any railroad. its ownership of ma
! jority Of the stocks of these two railroad
companies does not come within the pro-
! hibitfve language of the statute of 1874.
Separate Corporations.
1.-THE two companies still remain sep
| arate corporations with no interests, as
| such, In common. The case would nos be
eapa @ he
Of the stocks of one Of these companies,
! and another like person should invest in
the majority Of the stocks Of the other
! they chose to act in harmony, would be
the same as the interest of one person
owning the whole.
x :, ~ State Fixes Rates. -.
, THE: policy Of the state in respect to
reads s., is disclosed b. by its statutes; espe-
Statutes Of Sndes the
!. Commission which closely follows the
provisions Of congressional legislation re-
specting interstate commerce, and under
!: clearly specified regulations places the SUI
! pervision. oversight and control Of those
matters, particularly the rates for trans
p pat ion IN the hands of the designated
! 1T is plain from these statutes as con-
strued by the supreme court Of the state
that it is the policy of the state that tn.
railroads, With their rolling stock az:
! Of safety sc:d efficiency; and that rats
; Of transportation. while kept ample "a
secure such result, shall always be fer,
ules Of rates are to be kept publicly past
ed at every station, and no change or de-
Walton from such published rates Is Der
vantage to one shipper over another, and
no change in such rates is permitted un-
til after ten days previous published no.
! ttce has been given.
Under this system shippers can count
accurately the cost of transportation as
an expense in their business. with the
assurance that others engaged in like
pense; and untrammeled competition Re
tween rival railroads resulting in rate
wars. sporadic struggles for particular
rebates, open or secret. ali alike unfair OF
ruinOus to carriers and shippers, are pro-
hibited under penalties, and intended to
with: leaving as the only bases Of com.
petition between rival carriers the fur
nishing of the better accommodations
and the greater safety and celebrity Of
"Ali complaints that published rate.
are unreasonable are heard and deter
! mined by the state officials, who may fl
rates binding on the railroads; thus ne
tween rival railroads. AS result Of this
policy, and the absolute power of the
state OnclalS TO NIX rates. ana keep them
at the lowest reasonable figures. :competi-
ton between rival railroads no longer re-
duces rates. as it did when railroad COM
: panfes alone controlled them. On the
I: contrary where two or more railroads d.
wide the transportation between two
; places the necessity of considering great
er fixed charges and greater cost of ad-
ministratfon and operation may make the
reasonable rate for transportation greater
than If the whole business could be done
and was in fact done by one railroad. 7
l. '
/ No Law Violated. VI
However that may be. the Northern
/. Securities company is but an investing
!: stakeholder in these two railroad compa-
: MES, without power to consolidate them
or to interfere with the management OF
control Of either. Because of it's large
! holdings of these stocks 1t may elect the
board Of directors Of EACH who must be
composed OF entirely different persons. i
Each board will appoint the officers
: and control the business and affairs $o1
It's own corpora ton and will naturally
/ seek to increase its business and proper
J; ~. Neither has any power to control the
other nor to contract with the other In
1 restraint Of trade. There is no presump-
4 tion that either will tdisobey thu law ol
! be guilty Of the commission Of penal Of
1fen6es.s Should they do these things. then
the antitrust act of Minnesota viii be
-