The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-04-10
OPPOSED TO
 THE MERGER Decision in Securities Company Case. OPINION IS UNl% d0US
 z,ss Position of Unv States Gov vernm% Upheld. An Appeal to the Highest Court in the Land Will at Once Be Taken-Thayer Writes
 Conclusion.

St. Paul. Minn.. April 9.-The position of the United States government in the suit brought against the Northern &c., curities Company. the Northern Pacific and Great Northern Railways and indi- vidual officers and directors of those com panies was sustained in the decision handed down in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in this city today.
 The case was originally brought in the United States District Court here, but under a special act of Congress was talk en at once to the Court of Appeals. which court was to expedite the hearing and decision of the case in every manner pos sible. The taking of testimony in this city and in New York lasted for several weeks, and the arguments. in St. Louis before Circuit Judges Caldwell. Sanborn, Thayer and Van Devanter took several days.
 The decision of the court was written by Judge Thayer and was filed in this city. where the original action was insti- tuted. An appeal to the United States Supreme Court will be taken immediate ly. All four Judges concurred in the con- clusions of the court.
 In the course of its opinion, the court, in construing the antitrust law of the country, says:
 The Anti Trust Law.
 "The act brands as illegal every con- tract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations. Learned counsel on both sides have commented on the general language of the act, doing so, of course, for different purpose. and the generality of the language en- ployed is, in our judgment of great sig, nihcance. It indicates, we think. that Congress, being unable to foresee and describe all the plans that might be formed and all the expedients that might be resorted to place restraints of inter state trade or commerce, deliberately em- ployed words of such general import as. in its opinion. would comprehend every scheme that might be devised to accomp- fish that end.
 What is commonly termed a trust was a species of combination organized by individuals or corporations for the pur- pose of monopolizing the manufacture of or traffic in, various articles and com modities which was we'll known and fully understood when the antitrust act was approved Combinations, in this form, were accordingly prohibited. but Con- gress, evidently anticipating that a combination might fe otherwise formed, was careful to declare that a combina- tion in any other form. if in restraint of interstate trade or commerce. that 1t, if it directly occasioned or affected such illegal.
 Restraint of Trade.
 Moreover. in casss arising under the Act 1t has been held by the highest judi cial authority in the nation, and its opinion has been reiterated in no uncer- tain tone, that the act applies to inter state carriers of freight and passengers, as well as to all other persons, natural or artificial, that the words in restraint of trade or commerce. do not mean in unreasonable or partial restraint of trade or commerce, but any direct restraint thereof; that an agreement between com peting railroads which requires them to act in concert and fixing the rate for car riage of passengers or freight over their respective lines from one State to an- other and which. by that means restricts temporarily the right of any one of such carriers to name such rates for the car riage of such freight or passengers over its road, as 1t pleases, is a contract in direct restraint of commerce within the meaning of the act in that 1t tends to prevent competition: that 1t matters not whether, while acting under such a con- tract, the rate fixed is reasonable or un- reasonable, the vice of such a contract or combination being that 1t confers the power to establish unreasonable rates and directly restraints commerce by placing obstacles in the way of free and unre- stricted competition between carriers who are natural rivals for patronage; and rin- ally that Congress has the power. under the grant of authority contained in Fed eral legislation, to regulate commerce, to say that no contract or combination shall be legal which shan restrain interstate trade or commerce by shutting off the operation of the general law of competi- tion.'