The daily morning journal and courier., 1903-12-16
KNOX TAXES RAP AT MORGAN
fcontinued from First page.l

mercial disaster. should the govern ment's contention prevail, were solemn ly and forcefully impressed upon the court by gentlemen of eminent personal and professional standing. These con alterations invited and secured patient and full consideration of the cases and exhaustive analysis and Interpretation of the statute in the judgment. After making it perfectly clear that the court was not to be dissauded from giving ef- feet by its judgment to public policy declared by constitutional statute, the cour. stated what that policy is. and wherein l. was infringed by the chal- lenged agreements" Mir. Knox then discussed the end ac-. complished by the merger of the rail- road interests, saying: ..
 'The device resorted to in this case, | if sustained. defeats the policy of the law, as it accomplishes all and more in the way of effectual destruction of com petition than was accomplished in the trans- Missouri and joint traffic cases.
 '"The one secures permanent abso- lute control and power to administer every feature of management and oper- ation of the properties, while the others were but temporary arrangements which related to the single feature of rates, and depended for their duration upon the will of the parties @ I Congress meant that the govern ment should have the right to prevent i the exercise of the power to restrain interstate commerce by preventing it's acquisition through contracts, combina- 1 tions, conspiracies. or monopolies; and it is the contracts, combinations, and i conspiracies by which the restraint is brought about that the act declares il- legal. The great object of congress was to declare a policy against which no arrangement could stand by which the parties fully equip themselves with the power to defeat it's purpose.
 I MT. Knox then summed up his points l in support of his contentious, that as a fact this merger is a combination in form of trust, or otherwise, as follows:
 That the end it accomplishes is to bring under one control the Northern Pacific and Great Northern railroads in such a way as to destroy competition between them and to create monopoly Of transportation in the section served by them. s.., 5ae That this end was the deliberate pur- pose of the parties defendant, who con- ceived and carried out the combination.
 That such a combination is in re- straint of trade. as your honors have repeatedly decided, and therefore vio- latcs the act of congress. 1T 1 "To all this" he added, defendants make vigorous objection, much of which is wholly irrelevant"
 The attorney-general next discussed the alleged invasion of state rights. Of course state has certain powers over the instrumentalities of commerce which it creates, as it has over the in- dividuals by whom commerce is con ducted. But state has no power over either instrumentalities or individuals that can be interposed between them and the obligations imposed by a fed eral statute regulating interstate com merce.
 The question in this case is not whether congress can regulate and has regulated state corporations or the | Dl tllClE Sdpltdl SIOCk. InG question is: Can the owners of such capital stock regulate interstate con- merce? It is settled law that inter- state commerce cannot be regulated by
 state constitutions, nor by state legis- latures existing under state constitu- tions, nor by corporations created by state legislatures, acting through theil directors, as attempted in the Trans
 Missouri and Joint Traffic cases Whence comes such power, then, te stockholders if the sources of all theil irights and powers are impotent to de. feat the law of congress?
 But put the proposition as 1t is put
 by appellants: Can congress regulate the ownership of interstate railroads
 under it's power to regulate commerce
 among the states, and has it done SC by this act of 1890?
 Most certainly, yet, congress can reg,
 ulate anything and everything in tht
 sense that it can prohibit and proven
 it's use in way that will defeat a law
 that congress may constitutionally en-
 act For this purpose the suprem,
 power operates upon everything, upor every one.
 In concluding, the attorney-genera
 said:
 As I said in opening this argument
 specifically this suit was instituted tC
 determine whether this device, whicl
 defendants employed to restrain inter
 state commerce by monopolizing tn,
 business of transportation, will prevai against a law making all devices t,
 that end illegal. It is this particula,
 device that is before the court, and nt ether. In considering it have directed Iyour 11onors' attention only to its lega aspects, and I agree that it must b, judged upon these alone. The possibl,
 effects of such a judgment upon othel Il devices alleged to have been employed