Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1903-03-19
ARGUMENT ON the
MERGER IS BEGUN
Northern Securities Case in
Court Of Appeals is Under
Discussion.
GENERAL BEck's ADDRESS
Assistant Attorney General Holds Tina.
Laws Clearly Oppose the securi-
ties Company, and They Must
Be Enforced.

st. Louis, March 19.-The hearing OF
arguments in the anti-lnerger case of
the United States against the Northern
Securities company of New Jersey be-
gan this morning in the federal court
of appeals. James NJ. Beck. assistant
attorney general, opened for the gov
eminent.
1t would be difficult, Mr. Beck said,
to exaggerate the Importance of this
controversy. Few cases have ever af-
fected corporate interests of such mag
nitude and the welfare of the American
people.
IF competing carriers can form q
stable, permanent and controlling COM
bination with indefinite and perpetual
powers, through the holding corpora
tion'-a form far more inimical to pub
lie interests than the traffic arrange
ments or technical trusts the law has
condemIed-then the interstate COM
merce act and the Sherman act will, be
nullitied by individuals, who will show
the impotence of the American people,"
Mr.. Beck commended that the direct
ors of the Union Pacific, Northern Pa
cific. Great Northern and Burlington
had been SO grouped that all interests
We're represented in each, and all mo-
tive for competition eliminated that
a working combination controlled three
transcontinental systems, otherwise
analysed the Sherman law and con-
tended it prohibited such combina-
ton.
To remove motive for competition Is
to destroy competition. 1t is obvious
that officers of the Great Northern,
chosen by the Northern Securities, can
have no motive to compete with the
officers of the Northern Pacific, for the
prosperity of one is the other, and vice
'IneV 111oS tnr
and proceeds of their joint traffic go
into the treasury of the Northern Sc
curities. 10 suggest competition
where competition is useless is absurd
To claim that each stakeholder
has the right to sell his property at
pleasure, Mr.. Beck answered, that no
individual can, In combination with
others, dispose of his property to violate
the antitrust law. Irrespective of the
abstract power to sell, the legality of
the transaction must turn upon the
power of the Northern Securities COM
pany to buy the stock of two constitu-
ent systems, and this, he contended, did
not exist in view of the law which for
bids attempt to monopoize competitive
traffic.
Whatever the powers of New Jersey
may be as against the laws Of Mime
sofa, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota
and Washington, they are powerless
against the constitution of the United
States.
The stockholders operate the road.
Theirs is the ultimate CONTROL To
enjoin employees of an interstate rail-
road from interfering with interstate
commerce, and then deny equal au-
thority to control the employer who
seeks to hide behind a paper charter
would be an indefensible anomaly.
The defendants contend they have
,1,- IL
their act should suffer no interfer-
ence at law because others have been
guilty. No instance is cited where two
corporations have transferred all their
stock to a third expressly for
insuring perpetual unity Of ownership.
Even If such a case be cited, the ac-
ton or non-action of the government
can not nullify the will of congress.
The defendants contend though the
merger restricts interstate commerce.
1t accomplishes vaster purposes in the
development of traffic. This is the ia
miliar argument of the beneficence of
monopoly. 1t should be addressed to
congress- not the courts. The benefit OF
this merger may be all Mr.. Hill claims,
tinue their prejudices. and the argu-
ments to the courts will fall upon deaf
ears.
If the merger is beneficial, the en-
platte protest Of executives of five
states would seem unnecessary. How
ever. these questions are for the legis-
lature and not the judiciary. 1t is pos
sible the concentration of railroads is
as irresistible as gravitation, and that
the law itself will be as impotent to
stop 1T.
This, however, neither the pfficers Of
the law nor the courts can recognize.
The American people. when they rec
ognize monopoly is benef1cient and
competition an evil. will facilitate rail-
way monopoly. Until that time the law
should be impartially enforced for the
need of this country is not more law,
but more obedience to law.