The Minneapolis journal., 1903-04-24
Public and Private Interests.

In commenting on the merger decision |
John w. Criggs, ex-attorney general of
the United States, who was chief counsel
for the Northern Securities company,
SAYS 1T this decision carries with it
the broad principles 1T seems to, congress
has the power to tell a man what he shall
buy and can forbid one man from pur-
chasing what may be owned and used by
another And if the purchase Of any
thing by any one is contrary to public
interest why should not congress have
the power to protect the public interest?
Which is better, that private interests
should prevail or public when they run
counter to each other? The proposition
is not a very complicated one and not al
together new.
Mr.. Griggs continued: Il maintain that
congress has the right to. control use,
not the ownership of property, and has
no business with the title Of private prop
erty." ."
Mr.. Griggs is trying to make a dis
, tinction which does not exist, at least not
in the kind Of property with which the
merger decision deals: The ownership
implies, and carries with it the use. The
ownership is the real essence of the
proposition. It is the particular thing
which the law of Minnesota prohibits, for
the reason that there is necessarily
coupled with it use.
J Mr.. Grfggs speaks further of the little
= of private property Surely Mr..
Griggs is not trying to deceive anybody
i with the claim that railroad properties
are altogether .''private property Rail
roads are. not4chartered and clothed with
the extraordinary power which they ex-s
ercise for private benefit solely or chiefly,
but that the. public may be :. served.
Nothing else can Justify comforting upon
the railroads the power Of eminent do
main, and unless they are to be regarded
2 essentially as existing for the benefit of
the public, acting as agents of the state
and comforting upon private individuals
only the reasonable return for their labor
and investment to which they are fairly
entitled, the granting Of these powers
cannot be justified. ..au. ~
''To say that one person.. continues Mr..
Griggs, "or several persons cannot acquire
stocks in companies that might restrain
competition Is to say that the power to
commit crime is equivalent to its actual
commission Not necessarily equivalent
and yet proper to be prohibited. We dc
Z not allow private citizens to carry re.
yolvers in their pockets. It is against the
law. We prohibit not because carrying
SIS reyolyers is. equivalent to shooting some
body. but because it clothes the private in.
dividual with the power to do SO. It is
not necessary. the courts say, to establish
F. the fact that the Northern Seeuritie:
company was operating the Great North
ern and the Northern Pacific roads in re
straint of trade in order to establish tht
fact that such ownership was against tn.
public policy; it was sufficient simply Il
know that the Northern Securities com
pany possessed the power to do so If
saw fit to exercise it.
Mr.. Griggs says "the decision is revolu
4. tionary.' Sometimes revolutions are sex
ceedingly wholesome. q If this decision
revolutionary we believe it to be alto
gether wholesome. It emphasizes. but II
more than it ought to, the supremacy Q
public interest over private interest wher
the latter does or may conflict with tn
S former. The public interest is bound t
be pretty large thing in the eye of til
law. The decision evidently so regards j