Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-08-01
Securities Go.
Wins It's Suit.
Judge Lockren y. S. Circuit Court al 81 Paul SusahS
Contention of Defendants and DlsmisSeS Bill of Com
PLANT Of Minnesota Company SNof Gadhy of Violating
Lass c4gamsi Consolidating Parallel Competing Lines

VI AIH ANli~AluNN AdM IhssNh ~ hf'
state legislature in 1893 forbidding CONF
bnations In restraint OF trade or COM
merce between the state OF Minnesota
and other states, and its penalties, and
then gives a complete history OF the
merger proceedings Under conclusions
Of las the court says after reviewing
a number OF supreme court decisions
ON the sherman antitrust act:
THE proper construction OF the Sher-
man antitrust act as far as II relates
to rallroad transportation as deduced
from these conditions OF the supreme
court appears TO be this:
THE act applies 10 railroads and all
contracts made between railroad COM
panIes FOR the purpose and having the
effect OF preventing competition by FIX
ed rates, or empowering persons 10 fix
them, and agreeing to conform to them
when fixed, are In restraint Of trade
and within the provisions Of the sta
tutc. whether the rates SO fixed are
reasonable or unreasonable.
THAT contracts between manufactur-
ers Of commodity respecting their
sales Of that commodity to be delivered
by them outside the state, having the
direct effect Of sitting competition and
raising the cost Of the article to the
purchaser Is also In restraint Of trade
and Within the statute
THAT contracts which do not directly
and necessarily affect transportation or
rates therefor are not In restraint Of
trade, or within the statute, even
though they may remotely and indl-
fectly appear TO have some probable ef.
feet In that direction.
"The state antitrust act must have
the same construction In respect TO
traffic on railroads within the state,
Neither the Great Northern company
nor the Northern Pacific company were
parties 20, or IN their corporate eapac-
lily had anything TO do with the forma-
ton of the Northern Securities COM
pany nor Of any of the contracts or
proceedings complained Of In the bill.
The Northern Securities company Is
merely an investor in and owner Of a
majority Of the stock OF each OF these
two railroad companies. II has done no
act and made no contract in restrain
OF trade or commerce
THE action OF the defendant Hin IN
promoting the formation OF the North
.rrn securt'g. company under these
INcumipAuds and Tor the purposes
that the evidence discloses and invest
ing In its stocks by the sale to Il OF
his stock In the two railroad companies
entered into no contract In restrain of
trade or commerce or affecting trans
portatlon Of rates more than any ordi-
nary transfer of railroad stock from
one person to another.
THAT my Judgment after most care
full consideration of the facts and the
law applicable thereto as construed by
the highest court, leads me 10 the con
clusion that mono o. the defendants has
violated the Minnesota antitrust act,
a conclusion apparently contrary to
that reported by the eminent Judges
who IN this court recently decided the
case Of the United States VS. the North
ern Securities company. and who viii
doubtless, In another court review this
case upon appeal and has necessarily
caused hesitation and careful eyaml-
nation. But the rights Of ltigants and
my own sense OF duty alike require
that my own deliberate Judgment.
guided by my understanding Of author
itative expositlons Of the law. be given
in all causes tried before me.
ITO epitomize this decision. II IA
held that II will be for the interest OF
the Northern Securities company, to re-
strain trade by suppressing competition
between these two railroad companies
and that by coeroing or persuading the
two boards OF directors whom il has
the power To elect, II win certainly
cause them 10 commit highly penal Of
fensts by entering into combinations.
contracts and arrangements In restraint
Of trade in violation Of the antitrust
act, and hence the Northern Securities
company is already guilty Of these Of
lenses that have never been committed
or thought OF by its officers or pro-
motors go far as appears, and II must
be suppressed and destroyed
~ am compelled to reject the doctrine
that any person can be held 10 have
committed. or to he purp0slng ana
about 10 commit highly penal offense.
merely because II. can be shown that his
pecuniary interests will be thereby adj
vanced. and that he has the power
either directly by himself or indirectly
through persuasion or coercion Of his
agents to compass the commission OF
the offense. Decree viii be entered
dlsmisslng the bin"