Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1903-03-18
Arguments In the Suit Brought
by the Government Against
Securities Company
CASE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE
Assistant Attorney General Beck
Opens for the Government and
Makes a Strong Plea, Showing
Wherein the Railroad Merger vio-
lates the Antitrust Law.

st. Louis, March 1S.-Hearing Of ar
guments in the anti-merger case the
United States government against
Northern Securities Company of New
Jersey began this morning in the fed
eral court of appeals.
James NJ. Beck, assistant attorney
general opened for the government.
1t would be difficult, Mr.. Beck said,
to exagerate the Importance of this
controversy. Few eases have ever been
presented to any court which affected
corporate interests of such magnitude
and still fewer more vitally concern the
welfare of the American people.
IF competing carriers can form a
stable, permanent and controlling COM
bination with indefinite and perpetual
powers. thru the simple device of a
so-called holding corporation organ
lied under state charter. a form which
is far more inimical to the public in
terests than the traffic arrangements
or technical trusts which the law has
hitherto condemned, then both the in-
inhibition of pooling, and the act of
July ., 1890. with its sweeping condem-
nation of all combinations in restraint
of trade, or attempted nlonopolies. will
be nullitied by the power of individ-
uals, who will thus show the impotence
of the declared will of the American
people,
Mr.. Beck contended that the boards of
directors of the Union Pacific. the Nor
thern Pacific, the Great Northern and
Burlington systems, had been so group
ed that all interests were represented
in each, and all motive and necessities
for competition eliminated; that in this
manner a working combination had
been affected which controlled the three
trans continental systems, otherwise
whose total traclSaga 4was
over 33,0o0 miles. He analyzed Sher-
mans antitrust law, and contended
that 1t clearly prohibited such a COM
bination.
Courts he said are too practical to
ignore the known and natural results
of human action. In dealing with this
question they regard as a maxim the
proposition that to remove the motive
for competition is to destroy compete
ton itself. 1t is obvious that the Off
GERS of the Great Northern, chosen by
the Northern Securities, can have no
motive to compete with the officers of
the Northern Pacific in the operation
of their respective systems, for the
prosperity of the Great Northern is the
prosperity of the Northern Pacific. and
vice versa. They have a common ow-
ner and a common master. and it is Of
no practical consequence whether the
people use one or the other as car
rier as the entire proceeds Of their
joint traffic necessarily go into the com
mon treasury OF the Northern Secur-
tiles Company. To suggest that COM
petition is possible where competition
is useless is an absurdity.
To the claim that each stockholder
has the right to dispose of his prop
erty at pleasure. Mr.. Beck answered,
that no individual can, in combination
with others, so dispose of his property
as to violate the antitrust law. 1rre-
spective of the abstract power to sell,
the legality of the transaction must
turn upon the power of the Northern
Securities Company to buy the stock
of the two constituent systems, and
this, as he contended. did not exist in
view of the provision of law which for
bids any attempt to monopolize COM
petitive traffic.
The defendants contend that tho the
merger does restrict interstate COM
merce, it accomplishes vaster purposes
in the development of traffic. This is
the familiar argument of the benifi-
cience of monopoly. 1t should be adj
dressed to congress and not to the
courts. The benefit to the people of
this merger may be all that it's master
spirit, Mr. James j. Hill claims it to be
but / apprehend that the people Will
continue to entertain their old fashion
ed prejudice against monopoly, and the
arguments addressed to the courts will
fall upon as deaf ears in this respect
as when addressed to the legislatures
and people of the states Immediately
affected.
If the merger is beneficial, the enl-
phatic protest of the executive officers
OF five states would seem TO be unnec-
essary. However, these questions are
all for the legislature and not the ju-
dicial, branch of the government. 1t
is possible that the concentration of
interests including railroad
transportation, is an economic tend
cncy which is as irresistible as gravi-
tation, and that the law itself will be
as impotent to stop it as to challenge
by Legislative enactment the process
sion of the stars. This, however, nei-
ther the officers of the law, nor the
courts charged with the duty OF in
and enforcing 1t, can recog-
nize.
The American people are both con-
seryative and practical, and when they
recognize monopoly is benificient and
is an evil, they will re-
peal existing laws and by positive Leg
islation facilitate and legalize railways
monopoly. Until that time. which Is
likely 10 be the Greek kalends. the law
should be fairly, fully, and impartially
enforced. for it is everlastingly true
that the Imperative need of this coun-
try both at the hands of capital and
labor, is not more law but more obed
fence to law. However public spirited
the purposes of the defendants in form
ing this merger may have been, and
whatever Its resultant good or evil IL