The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-03-21
Attorney Watson Begins Closing
Argument for the Government in
Northern Securities Trial.
SHERMAN ACT is EXPLAINED.
Decision of Four Judges, Which Is
Not Expected for Several
Months, Will Be Carried
TO Supreme Court.

D. T. Watson of Pittsburg. special coun-
sci OF the Government will close the argu-
| ment in the case Of the Government against
the Northern Securities Company in the
United States Circuit Court Of Appeals this
morning. Mr.. Watson began his argument
ut o'clock yesterday afternoon and was
speaking when court ordered an adjourn
ment. at $50
1t is believed his argument will be ended
by noon to-day. No further arguments are
TO be heard. and the case. with briefs. will
! then be submitted. Considering the volum-
inous matter before the court. 1t is thought
a decision will not be reached for several
| months. No matter what the decision is,
the case viii be Immediately appealed to
the United States Supreme Court.
c. W. Bum. general counsel OF the Great
Northern. closed his argument yesterday
| morning at IL o'clock. He was succeeded
| by former Attorney General John w.
Griggs, who spoke three hours.
Mr. Griggs addressed himself to the sr-
gument that the acts OF the defendants did
| not constitute a combination in restraint Of
| interstate commerce within the meaning OF
the Sherman antitrust act.
FIVE POINTS OF ARGUMENT.
That the creation Of corporations and in.
| cidental matters have always been sub
jects Of State Jurisdiction.
That. the acts of the Northern Securities
Company being prima facie legal, it de-
veloped upon the Government to prove that
they were not bona flde, but a mere formal
device to evade the provisions of the Sher-
man act.
That any restraint of trade resulting from
acts Of the Northern Securities Company IS
Indirect and incidental only. end not GOV.
cred by the act of July 2. 1890.
That If the Sherman act can be con-
strued TO forbid the sale Of stock in com.
peting railroad companies to one purchaser
that act Is an attempted interference by
Congress with transactions wholly within
control Of the States. and therefore un-
constitutional.
That. assuming that Congress has the
right to pass such commerce-regulatins
statute. 1t should be distinctly expressed
and not in the judicial Interpretation OF
oouotrui language In a penal statute.
RIGHTS SECURED FROM STATE
He contended that corporation formed
under the laws of State has the sover-
eign power Of the State 10 purchase stock
or acquire property, and Congress has no
power under any law to prohibit such A
corporation from purchasing stock in any
other corporation, or to fix the purcha Sc
price.
congress has not prohibited the consolida-
ton OF railroads or ether corporations The
Government here says that the purchase of
STOCK in these two roads has given the de-
ieHdant company virtual control of thes,
roads. There is a specific difference between
virtual and legal control. Virtual control is
indirect. secondary. incidental only, and tho
Supreme Court has decided that Indirect.
secondary or incidental effects Of a trans
action such as this. cannot be taken into
account.
1t Is the operations Of people in COM
merce, not the ownership of property, that
Congress meant to and does restrain by its
enactments. Congress never said that the
right OF person to purchase property de-
pended on the amount he had. or the effect
Neither have the States. The acQuiescence
by the Government In the actual merger o.
railroads and other vast interests in the
Twelve years sirce the law went into ef-
feet has given a practical construction of its
meaning. TO the effect that ii Is not intended
To prevent a natural concentration of inter
ests. including the purchase OF stock.
PROBLEM OF OTHER TRUSTS.
II the virtual control or consolidation of
interests is declared unlawful, what will the
Government do, as it will be forced TO do
uDOub ACTUAL MERGERS OF vast interest
since the law went into effect? 1t will re-
suit In anarchy, financial chaos the disturb
ance OF vested rights
The speaker then took up the question of
conspiracy. which ne denied, declaring Hill
Morgan and their associates owned much
stock In the two roads in 1856. He spoke of
the strong moral influences they eXerted on
the other stockholders. which won their
confidence. He said the object of the con-
solicitation was the development of the coun-
try tapped by the roads, and competition
Western do In raa h.
great Asiastic markets.
The brief of c. ". Bum, for the defend
The act does not say that It is unlawful for
one railway to buy. lease. own control n
poration forbidden in terms to own stock in two
competing railways II any Of these things are
That Congress has not the CONSTITUTIONAL power
scribe The general rules by or under which either
real estate or personal property. stocks or bonds
or wiied within the States must as be admitted
nG Mp S5v les; , 6 say h That an
cause he may intend to use the same in a manu-
or sn s ns
more can Congress restrict the right OF partner.
State laws to buy within the State either real
or personal property. including stocks and bonds.
STATE LAW IS SUBSEQUENT.
ton does restrain Interstate trade it is imnater-
ial whether It has the sanction of State law or
Vested n' the sss at ssf IL
any similar case the transaction must be treated
as II fully authorized by State law. For a
by the act than for one interstate carrier to
u Of a parallel or competing carrier carrier. '' '''@
PARALLEL. AND COMPETING ROADS.
d. T. Watson followed former Attorney
General John W. Griggs. He spoke two
hours. and will consume about two hours
to-day. He said the only question before
the court to determine was Have the de-
PENDANTS been obedient to The acts enacted
by Congress relating to monopoles and in
terstate commerce? 1t was not for the
court to decide whether these defendants.
by consolidating these two roads, would
eventually develop the country tapped by
them and by extending the markets and
commerce. That was for Congress alone to
consider.
That these two roads were parallel and
competing roads had already been decided
by the Supreme Court. and 1t was only
necessary to show that the combina ton en-
antitrust law
Counsel for defendants had declared that
the power or states to authorize corpora
tons to acquire property was sovereign and
could not be orerridden by the Federal Gov
He quoted from Supreme Court
decisions showing that the power of Com
gress to regulate interstate commerce was
to that of any State
He read from the Sherman antitrust act
provisions declaring that any person or per-
sons. anywhere. who monopollzed. attempt
ed to monopolize. or combined or conspired
to restrain interstate commerce was guilty
of an unlawful act. No matter how acute
or shrewd or skillful the devious methods
by which they sought to accomplish this
purpose the final achievement of that pur-
ho natU MI 49, l. H.