The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-12-16

operation of each and sharing a fixed
proportion of a common fund, unaffected
by the proportion contributed by each,
there is no competition"
Mr.. Knox then summed up his points
in support of his contentious, that as a
fact this merger is a combination In the
form of trust or otherwise. as follows:
THAT the end it accomplishes, is to
bring under one control the Northern Pa
cifc and Great Northern Railroads in such
a way as to destroy competition between
them, and to create monopoly OF trans
portation in the section served by them.
"That this end was the deliberate pur-
pose of the parties defendant, who con-
ceived and carried cut the combination.
"That such q combination is in re-
straint of trade as your honors have re-
peatedly decided, and therefore, violates
the act of Congress
1T is bad enough to bring the railroad
facilities of an important section OF the
country under monopolistic control, but
when to the power to fix charges of the
transportation you add the creation OF
scores of millions Of fiat stock upon which
those charges are expected to pay divi-
dends. you impose an uniustlfiabie burden
on the people, and exact too high price
for successful evasion of the law
In concluding, the Attorney General
said:
"As l said in opening the arguments
specifically, this suit was instituted to
determine whether this device, which de-
PENDANTS employed to RESTRAIN Interstate
commerce by monopolizing the business
Of transportation will prevail against
law making all devices to that end llle-
gal. 1t is this particular device that Is
before the court and all others.
1.-The possibility of securities holding
company Of this kind, as financial ma
chine for manipulating railroad and other
properties and concentrating their control
in the hands of powerful clique are,
however. legitimate considerations, and l
am safe in saying they are simply enor-
nous. It has again and again been point
ed out, since the organization OF the
Northern Securities Company, that IN It's
simplest form is possible for group OF
men, by incorporating themselves as
securities holding company, to control two
railroad companies upon the holding OF
half the amount of stock that would be
required in the hands of individuals.
ITO prevent such a dangerous concen-
tration of power, dangerous to commerce
and a menace to cur freedom, the people
have done all that it is possible for them
to do under our system of government.
They have legislated against it. IT this
law can be construed in not to cover the
situation, or if the court says yea to the
proposition affirmed in the last paragraph
of Mr. Morgan's answer, namely: Con-
gress has no power to prevent such COM
binations, then indeed the governments
grave concern as to this litigation may be
easily understood.
Mr.. Knox was Immediately followed by
George B. Young, or Denalf of the SecW-
tiles Company. He began his argument
saving that his clients do not seek IN
any way to limit the authority OF Congress
over interstate commerce, nor was the
Securities Company seeking IN any
way to evade the law. But it was not, he
said, necessary to stretch law covering
interstate commerce to make it cover
something that is not interstate CON-
merce.
I'VE are not dealing here with COM
merce of the operations of railroads at
ALL he said, "but We are dealing with
the question of property
Mr.. Young contended that the transfer
of the stock of the railroad companies to
the Securities Company had been entire
w free from the features which had OPP
Grated to throw discredit upon the torma-
ton of trusts. Their, was no million dol
lar commission, nor any other incident OF
the usual character. Indeed, he asserted
that the combination was in no sense
trust. The transaction was nothing more
than a transfer of property.
1--WE are proceeding upon the theory"
he said, that an out and out sale was
made, and he went on, "unless the court
is prepared to hold that Congress should
exercise exclusive control of all transfers
of transportation agencies engaged in in
ter-state commerce, we fail to see how this
transaction can be held to be a combina-
ton in restrain of trade, or a violation
of the antitrust law"