New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-15

position was represented by long list OF counsel,
Including ex-Attorney General Griggs John @.
Johnson OF Philadelphia. c. " Bunn ana Charies
p. Young. Justice Brown the only men'be. o.
the court not present.
PLEA FOR NORTHERN SECURITIES.
The hearing began a. I2:26 O'Clock and John c.
johnson. representing the Northern Securities
COMPANY made the first argument lie announced
that the three railroads and the securities com
psny desired 20 be heard by their counsel while
II was said N behalf Of the government that only
the Attorney General would speak
After stating the case Mr. Johnson said that the
r,urpose OF the securities company in acquiring the
stock of the railroad companies ha6 been not 10
prevent competition. but 10 prevent the injury OF
its own property.
Early .n the argument Justice Peckham asked
whether the securities company held the greater
portion OF the stock OF the TWO companies, and
NJ Johnson admitted that the company held near
y all the stock. He contended that, holding the
stock IL had the authority control it He took
sharp exception 10 the decision of the Circuit
Court that the possession of the power which the
securities company had a violation Of the law.
ard contended that such holding was not in &C
oordance with decisions Of the Supreme Court.
which were uniformly the effect that it is the
Use Of power. and not the possession Of H. that
constitutes the offence.
SIX POINTS STATED BY APPELLANT.
Mr. Johnson said that what he had say would
he stated in six propositions which he outlined
briefly follows;
First-That there was agreement. contract,
combination conspiracy 10 restrain competition
between these TWO railway companies OF TO re-
strain trade. on the contrary, whatever contract
ar understanding there was in the case. as eS-
prove trade and commerce.
what in competition with themselves, ind it neces-
Fary, in order TO sustain their competition agaInSt
the public, 10 combine in any way for the purpose
n themselves
IN order. by means % that protection, to make
greater scale for the greater advantage of the
of fact 20 determine whether the real purpose was
10 destroy lead the destruction of The smaller
Is 9B5sSit Of the greater competition
Third-That If the holding by the Northern Sc
the two companies was a violation Of the Sherman
Dersors vaDid be d Violation of that act
Fourth-That the srst section of the sherman
acquisition ownership Of The shares of two com
FifthGThat the second section of the sherman
net does not I'm any way condemn the acquisition
sixthIThat 81 the sherman act does condemn as
illegal the ownership of controlling interest in the
shares Of the competing railway companies, II Is
unconstitutional
Taking up these propositions. Mr. Johnson con-
tended that there had been thought Of restrain
ing competition in uniting the ownership Of the
Two railroad companies. but repeated that, on the
contrary. the purpose had been 10 enlarge and
promote trade. He admitted that If there had
been any agreement 20 restrain Interstate com
rnerce. that would constitute direct violation or
the Interstate Commerce law, and also conceded
that it was immaterial what the intent had been.
lie knew well enough he said that the decision OF
the court would be based on the acts performed
and not upon The statement Of motives,
REASONS FOR THE MERGER.
Mr. Johnson then outlined at some length the or
Rsnization of the two railroad companies ana
said that after they had been I'm existence for
get
low rates on westbound freight. There was de
rrand in the East for the lumber of the Northwest
hut the problem get return frelghts to avoid
having practically double for carrying the Western
lumber. The railroad managers set out TO solve
this problem and began work TO cultivate an
Oriental demand for the coal and steel of the
East and the Middle West and the cotton Of the
South feeling that If this demand could be suff-
GENTLY stimulated the return freight problem
would he solved. Neither the Northern Pacific nor
the Great Northern reached the centres of these
interests but the Burlington road did and it
believed that IL they could get control Of that
line they could maze such low the Bur
lington and their own lines would insure
the permanency of The trade which might be de-
veloped in the Orient. This plan put into
execution the price paid being S26O000e0 This Mr..
johnson characterized as ''one of those bold en-
Serprises by which al the beginning of the present
century and the close of the last Americans car
Tied American trade 10 the furthest corners Of
the world" The Burlington not a parallel
a competing line. but supplier and certainly
1t could not be contended that this act was con-
srary 10 law
he then reviewed the alleged raid OF the Union
Pacific on the Northern Pacific stock. The Union
Pacific had. he said, proposed that II should be
allowed 10 hSve interest in the purchase. This
could not be allowed. he said and il naturally
declined because IL would destroy the purpose for
which the Burlington had been secured When the
Union Pacific got control Of the majority Of the
Northern Pacific stock, it was he said, stagger-
ing blow, because il carried with IL the ownership
Of a half interest in the Burlington.
After further reviewing this transaction. and re
ferriag 70 the formation OF the securities COM
pany, Air. Johnson said:
What was 70 be done? Remain quiet and allow
these people. who were waiting, like the under
the tree. for something 10 drop. and let them have
the prize, or 10 protect that alliance? They de
turn over the Northern Pacific shares This cor
poratlon formed by them with no concert
with the ] SO 20o other shareholders They
sold their shares outright 10 this company and did
employ OF those devices of now
and now you don't see" the ownership.
CALLS RESULTS BENEFTCENT
Mr.. johnson declared that the results were most
benehcent- As onc OF them. he said. there had
beer a vaet Increase IL The tonnage Of the two
.---------------