The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1903-12-15
IN Chief TRIBUNAL
IS ARGUED THE NORTHERN sECU-
RITES COMPANY CASE.
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
THE COMPANY AND OTHERS MAKE
THEIR APPEAL.

COntinues-BriIIiant Array of Lee
gal Talent Presents Argument.
Contentious of the Appellants and
the Reply Made by Attorney GEN
eraI Knox.
Washington, Dec. 1.-THE Supreme
Court of the United States to-day be-
gan hearing arguments in the case of
the Northern Securities Company, the
Great Northern Railroad Company, the
Northern Pacific Company, James ].
Hill, j. Pierpont Morgan, Daniel s.
Lamont and others against the United
States, coming to this court on appeal
from the decision of the Circuit Court
for the district of Minnesota. That
decision was to the effect that the pur-
chase of the greater share of the stock
of the two railroad companies consti-
tuted a merger and was contrary to
the Sherman antitrust law. The case
involves the community-of-i
principle.
There has been much interest in the
case, and when it was called to-day
the court room was crowded both in
side, and outside the bar. Attorney
General Knox was present with an ar
ray of assistants, while the opposition
was represented by a long list of dis
tinguished counsel, including former
Attorney General Griggs, John G. john
son of Philadelphia, G.. w. Bum and
Charles B. Young. Justice Brown was
the only member Of the court not pres
ent. Among those present were Mrs.
Roosevelt and Mrs. Knox.
John G. Johnson, representing the
Northern Securities Company, took
sharp exception to the decision of the
Circuit Court that the possession Of
the power which the Securities Com
pany had was a violation of the law,
and contended. that such holding was
not in accordance with decisions of the
Supreme Court, which were uniformly
to the effect that it is the use of the
power, and not the possession of it,
that constitutes the offense.
JOhnsOn's Six Propositions.
Mr.. Johnson said that what he had
to say would be stated in six propo-
sition, which he outlined briefly, as fol-
lows:
The first is that there is no agree
ment, contract, combination or con-
spiracy to restrain competition be-
tween these two railroad companies or
to restrain trade.
The second proposition is that If
two railway companies, somewhat in
competition with themselves, find it
necessary, in order to sustain their
competition against third company,
which otherwise could destroy them or
greatly interfere with their usefulness
to the public, to combine in any way
for the purpose of protecting them
selves against destruction, that the
court must look to the matter as one
of fact to be determined whether the
real purpose was to destroy a small
competition in order to promote trade
by the establishment of the great
competition.
The third proposition is that if the
holding by the Northern Securities
Company of the majority of the
shares of the two companies was vi
olation of the Sherman act, of course
an agreement amongst any number of
persons would be a violation of that
act.
The fourth proposition is that the
first section of the Sherman act does
not in any way condemn as Illegal the
acquisition or ownership of the shares
of the two competing companies.
The fifth proposition is that the sec
ond section of the Sherman act does
not in any way condemn the acquisi-
ton and holding of such ownership of
shares.
The sixth proposition is that IL the
Sherman act does condemn as illegal
the ownership of controlling interest
in the shares of the competing rail-
ni0C that If Is nnCOngtifII-
tional.
Not 10 Restrain Competition.
Mr.. johnson contended that there
had been no thought of restraining
competition in uniting the ownership
of the two railroad companies, but re-
peated that on the contrary the pur-
pose had been to enlarge and promote
trade.
MIR. Johnson urged that the owners
of shares of stock have the property
right to transfer their shares, and 1t
would be an absurdity to speak of
such a transfer between individuals
as a crime. He contended that cor
porations should have the same right
wise, he declared, would lead to I'M
told mischief.
Justice White interrupted Mr.. John
son TO observe that as he understood
the point it would be unlawful for a
corporation to do what an individual
might do. "In which case" continued
Justice White, you leave the power
to compete only in the hand of very
wealthy individual. Is not the an
swer to this that the facility with
which corporations can be formed rem
ders much more feasible the existence
of competition than would exist in
case only a very rich man could exer-
else that power?"
Mr.. Johnson admitted in reply that
that was a common sense view, and
then reverted to the decision Of the
Circuit Court against the Securities
Company because it has the power to
restrain trade. Mr.. Johnson declared
that this decision was something new
in Jurisprudence.
Few of us have a desire to commit
murder" he said, but many of US use
a razor which gives us the power to
murder"
For the Northern Pacific.
Mr.. johnson was followed by C. w.
Bum, who spoke especially for the
Northern Pacific. He confirmed his
discussion largely to the decision of
the Circuit Court in the case. Like
Mr.. Johnson he conceded that the
sherman act covers all ombination In
restraint OF trade. He contended. how
ever. that some latitude must be all
lowed In defining what Ia a restraint Of
trade, and he said Il was rather start
ling TO apply the law to, and make
criminal the consolidation Of two lines
OF railroad like the Great Northern
and the Northern Pacific. as was done
Continued on Fifth Page.