The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1903-08-14

~ Hssc0ntkAct9s uta0e Dol weensr Qhcons-
.f n re
rates. Or mpowerlng persons t0 fix them,
4 and agreeinE 70 conform 70 thenn when
ths proyisions 81 i tie i statute l xhether
the rates % hxed are reasonab bic pr UNI
That contracts between divers
sss: 81 e shst IS
delivered by them outside the state. hays,
Ing the direct effect Of stining cornpeti-
ton ti'l, ana raising the cost ,of the article
n trade and within the statute. sys
rectly and necessarily AFFECT transporta-
ystraint OF trade. or within the. statute.
even though they may remotely and In
sscty Y aRpsaT to have some
THE state antitrust act must have
the same construction in respect to traf-
fic on railroads within the state
HI Does Not Control.
Neither the Great Northern company
nor the Northern Pacific company were
had anything to do with I'll the formation
OF the Northern Securities company. nor
Of any Of the contracts or proceedings
ssompianed Of in the bill The Northern
IN and owner Of majority Of the stock
81 each Of these two railroad companies
It is not a railroad company. and has
no franchise or power to manage or OPP
crate or direct the management or OPP
GRAFTON OF either railroad In respect to
rates r. !. es, or charges for transportation, or
OtnerWise; and there Is no scinttlla of
evidence that It has sought to control or
interfere In respect to any Of these mat
ters.
ut has, therefore, done no act and
commerce. Owning now a majority OF
the stock of each Of these railroad COM
panies, It has the power by voting its
governing body-of each of these rail-
road companies. But the board Of di.
rectors Of each is different body from
Of Of f the other as no
can be director OF. the Northern Pacific
company. The directors Of each railroad
company will appoint its managing. and
and policy. Presumably they will seek.
In lawful ways only, to increase the bust
ness and property of the railroad which
they as directors represent.
The action of the defendant Hill in
promoting the formation Of the North
ern Securities company. under the cir
cnmstances and for the purposes which
its stock by the sale to it OF his stock
IN the two railroad companies, involved
no act or contract in restraint Of trade
or rates, more than any ordinary trans
fer Of railroad stock from one person to
another.
Differs With Other Court.
THAT my Judgment. after most care
full consideration Of the facts and the
the highest court. leads me to the con-
clusion that none of the defendants have
violated the Minnesota antitrust act, a
reached by eminent Judges who. in this
ed States Us; Northern Securities com
pany, 12O Fed, III. and who will doubt
less in another court review this cause
upon appeal. has necessarily caused hes
itatfon and careful examination. But the
rights Of litigants and my own sense of
duty alike requires that my own DELHI
crate judgment, guided by my under
standing of authoritative expositions of
the law, be given In all causes tried be-
fore me. Mt3
1.-THE decision Of the case last cited.
as read it and understood it. does not
specify or point out any contract, agree
ment or act on the part Of the defend
in restraint Of trade or commerce, or
which has any direct reference to trade.
commerce. transportation or rates; nor
the part Of any DEFENDANT o to pur DO any n9
such act, or enter into any such con-
tract or agreement.
But it is argued that because the
the owner Of large majority of the
stock Of each Of the two railroad cor
porations It will be for it's interest to
causing the two boards of directors Of
these railroad corporations, which it can
fl BY election. to enter into arrange
trade, which will suppress competition:
and as a corollary to this reasoning Cor
conjecture) the decision holds that the
of the he
jority Of the stock Of each Of these rail-
road companies. are acts or contracts in
RESTRAINT Of trade. though Of themselves,
taken. and perhaps never to be taken)
by the directors Of the two railroad COM
panies, the formation Of the Northern
stock has and can have nothing to do
directly or indirectly with trade, COM
merce. transportation or rates.
Guilty Before Offending.
''To epitomize this decision: It is held
Northern Securities company to restrain
trade by suppressing competition between
these two railroad companies; and that
Of directors. whom & has the power to
elect, It will certainly cause them to
commit highly penal offenses by enter
ing into combinations. contracts and ne a.. ar
lati0n Of the antitrust act, and hence
the Northern Securities company is al
ready guilty Of these offenses that have
never been committed or thought of by
its officers or promoters SO far as APP
pears; and It must be suppressed and de-
II am compelled to reject the doctrine
that any person can be held to have COM
mitted, or to be purposing and about to
commit q highly penal offense, merely
because ~ can be shown. that his pc
yanced. and that he has the power either
directly by himself, or indirectly through
persuasion Or coercion Of his agents to
compass the commission of the offense.
No Consolidation.
''Third-The charge in the bill that the
acts OF the defendant contravene the
, statutes of Minnesota prohibiting the
consolidation OF parallel and competing
lines of railroad presents different
Chapter 20. General Laws of Minne-
sofa. 1874, provides as stated:
81. No railroad corporation or the les
sors, purchasers or managers Of any rail-
road corporation, shall consolidate the
stock. property or franchise of such cor
poration with, or lease or purchase the
works Or, franchise of, or in any way
control any other railroad corporation
owning or having under its control q
parallel or competing line.,
u This Is the only statute on that sub
ject Of ccnsol ida ting parallel and COM
peting railroads that need be considered,
as II covers VIVA tever is contained in any
other. This statute is valid exercise
OF the police power of the state. Louis
vile, etc.. Railroad VS.. Kentucky, AL u.
g R77 iifsS3Sf - sf rs