The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-04-13
RAILROAD MAGNATEs AND THE
PERLIC

The recent decision of the United States
Circuit Court Of Appeals in the Northern
Securities seems to have stirred up
the financial and industrial world as it
never has been before. This is not be-
cause the decision announces any new doc
trine, but because it carries to a logical
conclusion principles as old as the COM
mon law and an explicit provision OF the
Constitution OF the United States. The
doctrine that combinations or conspiracies
in restraint of trade are illegal is very
old one, and the provision of the Constitu-
ton that gives Congress exclusive power
TO regulate commerce among the States is
a familiar one. If the proposed merger of
railroads had been confined TO or had af-
fected one State alone the Federal Court
would not have taken jurisdiction of the
suit A few weeks ago. when suit was
brought in State Court in Illinois against
an alleged combination of coal operators
in this State, the State Court dismissed the
suit on the ground that the proper place
to bring it was In the Federal Court, be-
cause the cause Of action related to COM
merce between two States. In the North
ern Securities case the suit related to COM
merce among and between many States.
and there could be no doubt as to the
jurisdiction of the court. There is as little
as to the conclusions reached by the court
in asserting the constitutional power of
Congress to prohibit railroad or industrial
combinations In restraint of commerce
among the States.
AS soon as the decision was reached the
leading parties in interest began to confer
together as to what TO do about 1t. These
conferences included James j. Hill, presi-
Mr.. ]. Pierpont Morgan. who seems to be
in every great undertaking, and other
financial magnates. 1t did not take them
long to decide to appeal the case 10 the
Supreme Court of the United States. Mr..
Hill said a few days ago that an appeal
could be taken as soon as the decree of
the Circuit Court was filed. This is the
undoubted right of the defendants in the
case. Mr.. Hill expressed the opinion that
when the Supreme Court passed on the
case with full presentation of facts 1T
would be seen in different light. eve
are still hopeful" he said, "of final de-
cree in our favor" 1t is difficult to See
how the facts can be more fully presented
before the Supreme Court than they were
in the Circuit Court and there is no rea-
son to believe that the higher court will
take different view of the law. The Cir
cult Court judges are probably as good
lawyers as the judges of the Supreme
Court, and there is no reason to expect
that the unanimous opinion of the Circuit
Court will be reversed. And why should
Mr.. Hill and those associated with MIN
expect it to be? Why should they expect
that the courts should fail to construe a
law intended to protect the public against
combinations in restraint of commerce
among the States as the trainers of the
law intended? The interests of the people
and of the country at large are far more
important than those of a few railroad
magnates. and the people demand competi-
ton in railroad rates. Why should these
magnates imagine that the courts will go
back on the established principle that COM
bina tions in restraint of trade are illegal,
or deny the constitutional power of Con-
gress to prohibit such combinations be-
tween parallel lines of railroad traversing
several States? If the railroad magnates
really expect the decision of the Circuit
Court to be reversed they will be disap-
pointed. 1t will be affirmed. Congress
and the courts will never consent that the
interests of the people at large shall be
subordinated to those of few railroad
magnates.