The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-03-18

neer is the act of the owners, and such
ownership not merely relates to but Is
Interstate commerce.
ITO enjofn the employees of an inter
state railroad from interfering by
boycott with interstate commerce ana
then deny equal authority to control the
employer who seeks to hide behind
paper charter would be a mOnstrous and
indefensible anomaly in the law. None
such exists.
Defendants further contend that in
fact they have only done that which
others have done both before and sub
sequent to the passage Of the sherman
act In other words. they make the
extraordinary plea that their unlawful
act should suffer no interference at the
hands of the law because others have
been guilty of the same violations OF
the law. 1t may be admitted that long
prior to the federal legislation in ques-
ton there had been 4 steady process OF
consolidation between the great railway
interests of the country. Many of these
/ consultations were in no sense restric-
tive of commerce, but were legitimate
and healthy extensions of existing lines.
Others were specifically authorized BY
states within whose borders the rail-
ways run. Others took place before the
passage of the federal antitrust law
and could not be governed by its pro
visions Apart from this, and concedlng
the existence of other violations, the
absurdity of the argument that a man
been guilty of a similar violation is so
transparent that defendants counsel
seek to hide it under the suggestion
that this testimony is offered to prove
a cOntemporaneous construction OF the
statute.
THE antitrust law of 1890 is of recent
passage and has been the subject of
considera bic litigation. Many cases have
been instituted under it. No instance is
cited in the list of supposed violations
OF the law where two corporations have
transferred nearly all of their capital
stock to third corporation created eX-
pressly for the purpose of insuring a
perpetual unity Of ownership. Such IS
the present case. Until it can be shown
that similar case exists, upon which
no executive action was taken, the
argument from contempOraneOus con-
struction becomes wholly untenable.
Even if such a case could be cited. the
action or non-action OF the officers OF
/ the government cannot nullify the will
! of congress.
THE defendants further contend that,
/ though the merger does restrict inter-
I state commerce. it accOmplisheS vaster
/ purposes in the development OF tratllc.
This is the familiar argument of the
/ beneficence of monopoly. It should be
addressed to congress and not to the
courts. The benefit to the people of this
4 merger may be all that its master spirit
! Mr.. James J. HILL in his argumentative
/ testimony claims it to be. but I appre-
bend that the people will continue to en-
! terrain their OIQ-IdSnlOlGQ LItJuQlCe
/ against monopoly, and the arguments
| addressed to the courts will fail upon
as deaf ears in this respect as when
| addressed to the legislatures and peoples
of the states Immediately affected.
IF the merger is so beneficial the en-
! phatic protest Of the executive officers
of five states would seem to be unnec-
essary. However, these questions are
all for the legislature and not for the
judicial branch of the government 1t is
possible that the concentration Of prop
erty interests, including railroad trans
portation, is an economic tendency
which is as irresistible as gravitatlOn.
and that the law itself viii be as i'm
! potent to stop it as to challenge by leg
4 islative enactment the procession of the
stars. This. however. neither the Off
GERS Of the law nor the courts charged
with the duty of Interpreting and en-
forcing i can recognize.
The American people are both con-
servative and practical and when they
recognize that monopoly IS beneficial
and competition is an evil, they will re-
peal existing laws and by positive legis-
lation facilitate and legalize railway
MONOPOLY. Until that time, which Is
I likely to be the Greek kalends, the law
should be fairly. fully and impartialiy
enforced, for it is everlastlngly true that
the imperative need Of this country.
both at the hands Of capital and OF
labor, is not more law. but more obedi~
ence to law. However public spirited
I the purposes of the defendants in form
ing this merger may have been, and
/ whatever its resultant good or evil, it
is enough for present purposes to say
4 that it clearly violates existing law.
whose provisions must be enforced un-
less government by the people is to be
deemed 2 delusion.
Stop-over at Niagara Falls