Willmar tribune., 1903-08-05
WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 5, 1903.
the MERGER DECISION.


curities Company is q violation of
the Sherman antitrust law bee ause it
places in the hands of one corpora
tion the power to elect the officers of
the two roads and it is presumed that
they will use this power to elect of
ficers that will work in harmony and
eliminate competition. In the other it
is decided that there is no violation
of the Minnesota statute which forbids
the union of parallel and competing
roads; that the roads are not united,
but continue under separate boards,
and that the formation of the Securi-
ties Company was rendered necessary
by the attempts Of the Union Pacific
road to get control of the Northern
Pacific and the Burlington and use
their power to injure the section
through which those roads pass in
order to build up the traffic of the
controlling road.
Judge Lochren upholds the Mime
sofa law forbidding union of parallel
and competing lines, but denies that
the Great Northern and Northern Pa
cidc are so united by the formation of
the holding company.
The matter will now have to go to
the Supreme Court for final decision.
The question Is now simmered down
to two propositions. The circuit
court in the national case has decided
that an act which gives q company
the power to exercise q monopoly Is q
violation OF the antitrust law. Judge
Lochren holds that the company must
make use of such power before 1t can
be said to have violated the law
1t would seem that the latter is the
more rational view. If every man
we're to be punished for all the crimes
he has the power to commit none but
idiots and insane people would be
safe from arrest.
AS long as we cannot prevent Hill
and his associates from owning q
controlling interest in the Northern
Pacific it would seem idle to fight any
particular form in which he chooses
to put his power of control. II it
were possible to pass and enforce
law preventing any person interested
in any corporation from holding stock
in parallel and competing line we
might compel the railroads to fight
each other. If that cannot be done,
and we doubt that anyone will claim
that it can be done, then we had bet
ter cease quibbling about forms of
union and look about for means of
preventing the use of monopolistjc
power to oppress the people. There
are only two ways offered-govern-
ment control or government owner
ship. Government control might
limit capitalization to the actual value
of the road and then enforce rates
that will just give fair rate of inter-
est on the money actually invested in
the road. There is, however, one
great objection to this system: it in
wolves a continual political warfare
between the people and the roads.
The latter would use, as they have in
the past, all their power to prevent
legislation controlling them, and if
they fail in that they will use their
vast political influence to get officials
friendly to the road. The last elec-
tion of railroad commissioners in
Minnesota is an object lesson on that
point. The men who had used their
position to secure rights for the peo-
pie were defeated and the friends of
the railroads were triumphantly elect
ed. AS long as people adhere slav-
ishly to party lines the corporations
have the advantage of them under
system of government control.
Under government ownership the
corporations would disappear as.
political factor. The battle would be
fought once for all. Rates would be
adjusted on the basis of cost of opera
ton, not to pay dividends on fcti-
tious capitalizatio If there were
any surplus it would 60 to the govern
ment, and could be used to reduce
taxes or extend the systems of roads.
If people we're dissatisfied with the
management they could change it by
changing the administration. They
could remedy things easily, and
would not have to go through years
sof litigation to determine where the
owner OF 9 road shall keep his stock,
and saccomplish nothing BY the de-
& etsion when II is finally reached. &.