The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1903-12-18

Washington, December 1.-THE
| Supreme court of the United States
today began hearing arguments in
the case of the Northern Securities
| Company, the Great Northern Rail-
road Company, the Northern Pacific
Company. James j. Hill. ]. Pierpont
Morgan, Daniel s. Lamont and others
VS.. 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 purchase of the great
er share of the stock of the two rail
road companies constituted a merger
and was contrary to the Sherman
antitrust law. The case involves the
community-of-interest principle.
There has been much interest in
the case and when il was called today
the court was crowded, both in
side and outside the ban. Attorney
General Knox was present with an
array of assistants, the opposi-
ton was represented by a long list
of distinguished counsel, including
former Attorney General Griggs, John
G.. Johnson, of Philadelphia, c. w.
Bum and Charles B. Young. Justice
Brown was the only membe of the
court not present. Among those pres
sent were Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs.
Knox.
John j. Johnson, representing the
Northern Securities Company took
-. 4A-
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 the decisions
of the Supreme court, which were un-
ifOrmity to the effect that it is the use
of power n not the possession of it
that constitutes the offense. Mr..
Johnson a that what he had to say
would be stated in six propositions,
which he outlined briefly as follows
The first is that there was no
agreement, contract, combination or
conspiracy to restrain competition be-
tween these two railway companies,
or 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 a third p
which otherwise could destroy them
or greatly interfere With their useful
ness to the public, to combine in any
way for the purpose of protecting
themselves against distinctions; that
the court must look to the matter as
one of fact, to determine whether the
real purpose was to destroy a smaller
competition in order to promote trade
by the establishment of the greater
competition.
The third proposition is that If the
holding of the Northern Securities
Company of the majority of the
shares of the two companies was a
violation of the Sherman act, of
urse an agreement amongst n
number of persons would be a viola
ton of hat act.
The fourth proposition is that the
first section of the Sherman act does
not. in any W a condemn rs illegal,
the acquisition or ownership Of the
share of the two competing com
panies.
The fifth proposition is that the
second section of the Sherman act
does not in any way condemn the ac-
QUESTION and holding of sue Wner
ship of shares.
The sixth proposition Is that if the
Sherman act does condemn as illegal
the ownership OF a controlling inter-
est III lie S1tIeS Ol lle COIllpcllIE
railway companies. that it is unCOn-
stitutional.
Mr.. johnson contenoed that there
had been no thought of restraining
competition in uniting the ownership
OF the TIVE railroad companies, but
repeated hat on the contrary the
| purpose had been to enlarge and pro-
mote trade. Mr.. Johnson urged hat
the owners of shares OF stock have
the property right to ~ansfer their
shares and that it would be an alb
surdity to sneak Of such a transfer
between individuals a. a crime.
He cOntended that corporations
should have the same right as indi-
viduals. TO contend otherwise. he
declared, would lead to untold mis-
chief.
Justice White Interrupted Mr..
Johnson to observe that as he under
stood the point it would be unlawful
for a corporation to do what an in
dividual might do. In which case"
continued Justice White" you leave
the power to compete only in the
hand of a very wealthy individual. Is
not the answer to this that the facility
with VII ch corporation can be form
ed renders much more feasible the
existence of competition than would
exist in case only a very rich men
could exercise that power
Mt. Johnson admitted in reply that
that was a common sense view and
then reverted to the decision of tn
circuit court against the Securities
Company, because it has the power
to restrain trade. Mr.. Johnson de-
clared that this decision was some
thing 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"
Mr.. johnson was followed by c. w.
Bum, who spoke especially for the