The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-03-19
JJNTIIINllABr.E.

~.
"; itt.But whatever the powers Of the state
OF New Jersey may be as against the
laws OF Minnesota, Montana, Idaho,
North Dakota and Washington. and for
tunately this difficulty CT conflicting
State powers need not DC decided in
This case, it is. obvious that they arc
powerless when invoked against the Con-
stitution Of the United States. 1t pro-
vides for its own supremacy and the
laws made thereunder, and among these
powers, as to6which it Is supreme, is the
power to regulate interstate commerce,
and under this power, as was decided in
the Joint Traffic and Trans-NissDuri
cases, the Federal antitrust law has
been duly enacted 1t is the supreme
law OF the land, the laws Of New .Jer-
fsey to the contrary notwithstanding. Any
other view would make the State, through
its power to create corporations with i'll.
definite powers, superior to the Federal
government and supreme in matters Of
legislation The proposition IS unthink-
able. &
defendants -eontend,, however, that the
mere ownership or shares by the New
Jersey corporation has no direct or i'm
mediate relation to interstate commerce,
and is, therefore. not within the scope
of the Federal power. Even II this cor
poratlon were only holding corpora
tion, could not concede tho conten-
tion.
In the last analyses the stockholders
clearly operate the road. Theirs Is tho
ultimate control 'Qui facit per alum
facit per Sc is nm old maxim of the law
and approved common sense.
The stockholders who at an annual
meeting, determine the policy of the
road, are as much engaged in commerce
as the locomotive engineer who. undor
lhnir direction and as their servant, pro-
11els a train from ST. Paul to Seattle,
Indeed, tho act of the engineer Is the act
. of the owners, and such ownership not
merely relates to but is interstate com
q lnerce.
tx BENEVOLENCE OF MONOPOLY.
1.-The defendants further contend that
Though the merger docs restrict interstate
commerce. 1t accomplshcs vaster pur.
poses in the development of traffic This
is the familiar argument of the bcncti
ccnco Of monopoly. 1t should be ad
dressed 10 Congress. and not TO III,
courts.
.'If the merger is SO beneficial. the en-
2 phatic protest OF the executive officer
Of FIVE States would seem TO be unnec
essary, However. these questions AFRO al
for the Legislature and not the judicla
branch OF the government.
"The American people are both con
teryative and practical, and when the
recognize that monopoly Is beneiicent an
competition is an evil, they will repca
existing laws and by positive Legislation
facilitate and lcgalize railway monopoly
Untll that time which Is likely to be tn
Greek kalends. the law should be fairly
fully and impartially enforced, for
is eyerlRstIngly true that the i,nperatiy
need of this country. both at the hand
of capital and labor. is not more las
but more obedience to law, Howeye
public spirited the purposes Of the de
PENDANTS in forming this merger ma
have been, and whatever its rcsultan
good or evil, It Is enough for prest,
purposes 10 say that It clearly violate
existing law. whose provisions must b
enforced unless government by the peopl
IS 10 be deemsd a depsion."
When Assistant Attrney- General Becl
had finished. former Judge George 3
Young. OF 81. Paul, then began the pre
sentation OF arguments In rcbuttal 81
4 The Northern securities Company Ate
Judge Young ha1 spoken Cor hair AZ