The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1903-12-17
THE lIERGER HEARING
Northern Securities Case Comes Up
in u. S. Supreme Court.
BIG ARRAY OF LEGAL TALENT

J, G, johnson Asserts Companies Dll
Not Mean to Check Competition
Mr.. Knox Says MisehieVous Evasion
Of Law Has Been Attempted.
Washington. Dec. 1.-THE suprem
court OF the United States began hear
ing arguments in the case OF the North
ern Securities Company. the Northern
Pacific Company James j. Hill, J
Pierpont Morgan. Daniel 5. Lamon
and others against the United States
coming 10 this court on appeal from th'
decision Of the Circuit Court for tn
district OF Minnesota. That decision
was TO the effect that the purchase q
the greater share OF the stock Of th'
two railroad companies constituted
merger and was contrary TO the Sher
man antitrust law
Attorney General Knox was presen
with quite an array Of assistants from
his Office. while the opposition als'
was represented by a long list OF dis
tinguished counsel. including forme
Attorney General Griggs, John G
johnson. of Philadelphia. c. w. Bum
and Charles b. Young
Mr.. Johnson said that what he had L
say would he stated In six propositions
which he outlined briefly as follows
The first is that there was no agree
ment. contract. combination. or con
spiracy TO restrain competition between
these two railway companies, or tC
RESTRAIN trade.
The second proposition Is that II two
railway companies somewhat In cOmpe-
tition with themselves. find II neces-
sary in order 10 sustain their COMPETE
ton against third company which
otherwise could destroy them or great
" interfere with their usefulness tc
the public. to combine In any way foi
the purpose Of protecting themselves
against destruction. and in order, by
means OF that protection TO make a
greater competition with greater
rival on a greater scale for the greater
advantage Of the public, that the court
must look TO the matter as one OF fact
10 determine whether the real purpose
was TO destroy or lead 10 the destruc-
ton OF the smaller competition in
order to promote trade by the es,ab-
lishment OF the greater competition.
The third proposition is that If the
holding OF the Northern Securities
Companies OF the majority OF the
shares Of the two companies was a VIC
latlon Of the Sherman act Of course
an agreement amongst any number oi
persons would be violation OF the 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 acquisition
and holding OF such ownership.
The sixth proposition is that II the
Sherman act does condemn as Illegal
the ownership OF controlling inter
est in the shares OF the competing
railway companies. that II is unconsti-
tutional
In beginning his address Attorney
General Knox outlined tho attitude
Of the government towards the case.
saying that II was "one Of grave con
Germ. based upon It's conviction that a
miscellaneous evasion OF the law had
been attempted. as well as upon its os-
pecial interest In and relations to one
of tho properties affected"
His statement OF facts in this con
nection was as follows:
First-That the Northern Pacific
railway was built under the authority
of the United States and In the main
with capital furnished by the United
States and that the United States in
tended and attached the condition TO
its contribution that the railroad
should be a great independen nj national
highway and specified that the object
OF It's construction was TO promote the
public interests
Second-That by different devices
employed during the past 10 years, the
defendants. or some Of them, have en-
deavored to destroy the independence
of the Northern Pacific company and
bring il under the domination of the
Great Northern company.
Third-That the Northern Securities
company Is an fundamentally devised
by defendants to acquire, hold and ex-
ercise control of these two parallel and
lines Of railway; to destroy
between them, TO create a
monopoly Of transportation in the Sec
tion served by them, and to defeat the
condition atachted by the United
States to the franchise and land
grants of the Northern Pacific.
Upon this statement the attorney
general based these propositions:
First-That the arrangement ef-
fected by defendants is a combination
in restraint OF interstate commerce,
and is illegal under the first section OF
the Sherman antitrust act.
second-Thst it constitutes a mo-
nopoly under the second section of
that act.
Thlrd-That the court has the power
10 prevent. restrain or otherwise pro
hiblt n.
Mr.. Knox then announced one prop.
osItion by way Of argument: This
merger OF interests was a combination
IN restraint Of commerce among the
states. and was intended so TO be. and
with or without a proven intention, 1t
Is Illegal, as by virtue of the combina-
ton It Is guilty Of the mischief which
the law Is designed 10 prevent, name
ly. It brings transportation and trade
throughout a vast section Of country
under the controlling influence Of a
single body and destroys any possible
advantages the public might have
through any competition between the
two lines"
STEEL TRUST TO CUT WAGES
$50, 900 Men to be Reduced from to
20 Per Cent.