The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1903-04-17
or ORDER.

opinion is unanimous.
SUBSTANCE OF ORDER.
The substance of the order follows:
a decree in favor Of the United
States will accordingly be ertered to
III, following effect:
A%djudgins that the stock of the
Northern Pacific and Great Northern
companies now held by the Securities
company was acquired in virtue OF a
combination among the defendants in
restraint of trade and among
the several states, such as the anti
1 trust act denounces as illegal.
Enjoinine the Securities company
from acquiring or attempting to ac-
quire further stock of either of said
companies.
CANNOT VOTE STOCKS.
Enjoining it from voting such stocks
at any meeting of stockholders of said
railroad companies, or exercising or
\ attempting to exercise any control, di-
1 r~cction, supervision or influence over
] the acts of said company.
Enjoining the Northern Pacific and
1 Great Northern companies, respective
| iy, from permitting such stock to be
likewise enioinins them from paying
any dividends 60 the Securities COM
1 pany on account of said stock, or per-
uniting or suffering the Securities
rompany to exercise any control what
eoever over the corporate acts Of said
companies.
MAY RETURN SHARES.
Finally, permitting the Securities
company to return and transfer to the
stockholders of the Northern Pacific
/ and Great Northern any and all shares
I of stock of those companies which it
may have received from such stock
1 holders in exchange for it's own stock;
1 or to make such transfer and assign
1 nent to such persons as are now hold
1 crs and owners of its own stock origin
I ally issued in exchange for stock of
4 said company.
THE COURTS DISCUSSION.
i The opinion declares that under the
4 admissions of defendants, the Sccuri-
\ ties company acquired control Of the
I Burlington, Northern Pacific and Great
1 Northern interests, parallel and COM
1 petine lines. and holds that the scheme
L thus contaminated led inevitably to
Il the following result:
q Control of two interests in the hands
\ Of a single person.
4 Destroyed every motive for competi-
" ton between those two roads ENGAGED
in interstate traffic, which are natural
81 competitors for business, by pooling
b the earnings of the two roads for the
common benefit of stockholders of both
companies.
Il And, according to the familiar rule
N that everyone is presumed to intend
81 what is the necessary consequence Of
q his w act, we must conclude that
q those who conceived and executed the
N plan aforesaid intended among other
s things to accomplish these objects.
& MEANING OF "TRUsT."
4 The court discusses the meaning of
the word trust" in tho antitrust act
and says congress was careful to de-
r II ~ kl,,+ , ~ ~ + : - 49, e
4 of interstate trade or if it
directly occasioned or affected such re-
sI straint, should be deemed ILLEGAL. The
M words Gin restraint of commerce." do
##not mean in unreasonable or partial.
# IS restraint of trade; but any direct re-
s@s strain thereof.
M The court further says that anv
b. agreement between competing roads
III requiring them to act in concert in fix
Ling rates for carriage of PASSENGERS or
aNS freight over their respective lines from
7##one state to another is in direct re-
aSsstraint OF within the mean
sMeing OF the antitrust act.
n POWER OF CONGRESS.
M Congress has the power, the decision
under the constitution, to regu-
81 late commerce and to say that no con-
a#s-tract or combination shall be Ieaal
s#E winch restraints interstate by
hi shutting off the operations Of the gen
law or competition.
81 The organization of the Securities
81 company is held to accomplish an act
congress has denounced as iile-
MMsgal, more effectualIy than by other
g9sA methods.
81 Concerning the New Jersey charter,
81 the court says the question to be de-
Z Eernnlned is whether a charter granted
III by a state can be used TO defeat the
legislature as expressed in a
law relating to interstate trade, over
congress has absolute control.
s After quoting New Jersey law, the
&sS#scourt says the law mea rs that no pow
granted by a state shall be exer-
eised to set at defiance any United
statutes. The contention tina:
ssgt ne existing combination is in violation
sMsot the antitrust act, and that that act
nduly restricts the right Of the in
to make a contract, and is F..
valid, is declared to be entitled to liz.
lie consideration.