The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-12-16

(continued from, Page one) a. control and power to administer every feature of the management and operation of the property, while the, others were but temporary arrangements which related to si,a single feature of rates, and depended for their duration, upon the wilisof the parties. .
 you may call it a merger. a combine 3fnn, a pool, conspiracy, a consolidation. a contract. q securities company. or what ever you like. The thing it accompitshes im not varied by variation in name or manner of bringing it about :. 'iCongress meant that the government should have the right to prevent the ex- ercase of ths-powe to restrain interstate commerce by preventing its acquisition through contracts. combinations, con splracies or. monopolies;l and 1t is the contracts, combinations and congpiracies by which the restraint is brought about that the act declares illegal.
 Object of Congress.
 ssrhe great object of Congress was to declare a policy against which no ar raneement could stand by, which the parties fully. equip themselves with the power to defeat its purpose"
 He also declared that the power to sup press competition has been exercised, and he declared that Messrs. Morgan and Hill had the power to suppress competition be- tween these two roads. when they. held the control of the majority of the stock of the two. He also asserted that they executed that power and actually sup pressed and destroyed competition be- tween them the moment they parted wilh the legal title to their segregated hold sngs and vested them in the Northern Securities Company with the power In Aa- A .afao v-fA exercise all the rights of ownership, ir- cludIng the right to vote thereon"
 This he contended actually destroyed competition between the two roads, and in support of this statement he laid down She following general propositions: TO be competition there must be com petitors in dif1eeent interests. --
 Any act which eliminates the compet- tors or unifes the interests destroys com petition.
 There is no competition where the net results of operation go. into a common mo purse. a5
 There may be rivalry between the diff ferent departments or agencies as to which will contribute the most to the common fund or as to which is the most economically administered or operated. but so long as all are interested in sne operations of each by sharing a fixed proportion of a common fund. unaffected by the proportion contributed by eacn, there is.-noi competition.
 For Securities Company.
 Mr. Knox was followed by George NJ. Young, on behalf of the Securities Com pany, who declared that his clients do aot seek in any way to limit the author aty of Congress over interstate commerce. He said the Securities Company was not seeking in any way to evade the law. But 1t was not, he said, necessary to stretch a law covering interstate com @erce to make it cover something that 0 not interstate commerce. .....-
 I've are not dealing with commerce or the operation, of raiIroads at all" he said; but we are dealing with the ques- tion of property" -..--~-
 All contracts in restrain of trade are Mir. Young said. largely executionary. and he contended that the true view of the law must be in the same line as that of conspiracies. There might be power t. efHect commerce, but to come within. tht convention of the law. the power mus be exercised. Mfr. Young also discussed the sugar trust case, which, he said was often misunderstood. In that cas' a number of sugar concerns had been con solidateed. The companies were as, mucf engaged in commerce as were the pur chasers of these railroad shares. Indeed he contended that the transfer of shares of stock was not commerce at all. and by way of illustration. he said that thS holder of railroad shares was no more engaged in commerce than is the holder of stock in a baseball company engaged In playing ball.
 Mir. Young had spoken only twenty minutes. when. at o'clock. the court took a recess for luncheon.
 Young Continues Argument.
 After recess. Mir. Young continued hi,