New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-16


thing and everything in the sense that 1t can
prohibit and prevent its use In a way that wiz
defeat q law that Congress may consututonaly
enact. For this purpose, the supreme power oper-
ates upon everything; upon every one"
IN concluding the Attorney General said:
AS said in opening this argument specifically
this suit was instituted to determine whether TINS
device which defendants employed to b resTsn
OF transportation, viii prevail against law MAKING
device that is before the court. and no other. IN
eonsidering IL have directed your honors StteH T.
must be judged upon these alone The possible possible
eesed 10 5 5Ta & upon The same end is
not for present consideration.
POSSIBILITIES OF SUCH A COMFA~Y.
The possibilities OF Il securities holding company
ing t rsEoa a ans and r9r
ms their control in the hands OF powerful clique
again and again been pointed out. since the organ
zation OF the Northern Securities Company. that
in ITS simplest form 1t is possible Tor group OF
holding company TO control two railroad COM
panles upon the holding or half the ahount OF
stock that would be required in the hands of in
individuals will no required to hold 81 per cent of
the stock Of both railroads in order to control them
but II particular group Of men had the control or
OF the stock of both roads they would control both
roads upon q holding Of 81 per cent of the shares
the the oaptS Of he %o road This
does violence 10 simple rule OF vulgar fractions;
because IL works out that half OF half is equal
to half Of a whole. or course. it is simple
proposition 70 bring any number OF raToae3 updeF
the securities holding company or without increas-
securities holding company, by employing the de-
vice resorted by the defendants in the purchase
of tire Burlington road. namely, oy having one or
the railroads controlled by the securities company
acquire the stock ana pay Tor II with us own 90
All the roads west Of the Missouri River, which
transAIss0uTi ARRANGEMENT, could easily be brought
into permanent harmony without physical consol-
l cannot think that combination held together
by rope Of sand comes within the Prq Pm o.
steel may defy its wisdom and It's power.
To prevent such a dangerous concentration OF
power, dangerous TO commerce and menace to our
freedom the PEOPLE have done oil that 1t is possible
for them to DO under our system OF government.
They have legislated against II. II this law can
he construed not TO cover the situation. or TX
the last paragraph of Mr.. Morgan's answer. name
H,stinns fhe1 ,' in9ead the g6vernment's grave
concern as to this litigation may be easily under
stood.
NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.. SAYS YOUNG.
Mr.. Knox closed at 1:4o p. m and was imme-
dately followed by George B. Young on behalf of
the securities company. He began his argument
by saying that his clients did not seek in any way
to limit the authority OF Congress over interstate
commerce nor was the securities company seek
ing in any way to evade the law. But IL was not,
he said necessary to stretch law covering inter
state commerce to make it cover something that
not interstate commerce. We are not deal
ing here with commerce or the operations OF rail-
roads at ALL he said. but we are dealing with
the question OF property"
He referred to previous cases in the Supreme
Court under the antitrust law, and said that Con-
gress had not defined the restraint Of trade. and
that 1t had been necessary for the court to make
its own definitions. In the joint traffic case the
roads dealt with were competing in character. Bat
suppose they had not been competitors. and they
had agreed TO reduce rates. That would have been
contract in restraint Of trade. for the gist Of con-
tract found in the obligation that it lays upon the
parties TO it.
All contracts in restraint of trade are, Mr.
Young said largely executory, and he contended
that the true view of the law must be in the same
line as that Of conspracies. There might be power
TO affect commerce. but TO come within the convic
ton of the law the power must be exercised.
THE INTENT OF CONGRESS.
Turning his attention TO the intent of Congress in
enacting the antitrust law, Mr.. Young said
Did Congress intend to interfere. with the powers
Of the states to regulate sockhodings IN railroads
no peLoer gut11 Sfrb has been puTsied from
in the leading States Of the Union of States Iegis
iation authorizing the consolidation of competing
roads either by consolidation and union of the two
perpetual lease of the other or by acquiring all Of
the stock of the other. 49,
Now, that has been going on from the very be
ginning Now. did Congress- believe what every
If Congress did believe that the States hal such
It certainly dd o not intend to exercise the
Is it reasonable to believe that Congress. by that
line of the statute every contract. com ina
ton or conspiracy in restraint of trade is hereby
clare that all State regulations unconstitu-
tionalP do rot think that Congress In passing a
remedial statute intended to pass such an act.
Coming to the matters Of fact in the case, Mr.
Young contended that the law had not been vio-
lated. The inception of the Northern Securities
Company was reviewed. and Mr. Young complained
that Mr.. Knox in his argument had gone back to
1885 and to the PeaTsaIl He also spoke OF the
Attorney Generals reference to Mr.. HILL saying
that that gentleman seemed 10 be the bette noire in
the case But. instead Of the early reorganization
being due to Mr. Hill. it was Mr.. Young declared,
due to the European shareholders of the Great
Northern. It was not fair 10 say that the purchase
at that time had been made at the expense of the
Northern Pacific.
Mr. Young also complained Of Misrepresentation
OF the facts in the case by the Circuit Court One
incorrect statement had been made he said. when
II was asserted that Burlington securities had been
used 10 payment for the Burlington stock. whereas
the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern had
used their own securities
The petition charges that conspired." con-
tnued Mr. Young Ito do two things. One was to
form the Northern Securities Company. The other
10 furnish II with a controlling interest Of the
stock Of the two companies: that we agreed at
that time to use our influence and persuasion with
the other shareholders Of the Great Northern to
get them to transfer their shares the securities
company. 1t also states that the securities COM
pauy. having got s33,O00.0OO OF stock from u.s. got
s6o0o00OO from other shareholders
Now. upon that point there is not only no evil
dence at all to the effect that they used in
fuence with the other shareholders. but the evil
dence is that each shareholder acted for himself
A simple written offer made. circular was
sent out by the Northern Securities Offering 10 buy
the stock Of the shareholders at $3.50, paying for
It with its own stock at par. and it left for
the stockholders to decide for themselves