The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-06-09
THE MERGERS
TRUMP CARD.
Continued from First Page.

ness, and not as to business within the
state. There might be a. consolidation in
North Dakota, which was prohibited in
Minnesota. The federal regulation was
paramount, and, therefore, exclusive. This
he fortified by citing and explaining sew
eral decisions.
Interstate Commerce Question.
ut seems to me,'' said Mr.. Bunn ''tha.
this case must be decided one way or the
other on this proposition: Does the state
have authority to regulate interstate COM
merce? 1t seems plain that, as this power
has been given to congress, and has been
exercised by 1t, the state cannot assume
such regulation. Therefore, the statutes
OF Minnesota bearing on this question are
sary to follow the decision in the federal
case, rendered at St. Louis, then the case
must be thrown out, unless the state
makes out a case under the federal law
Mr.. Bum read extensively from the de-
cis1ons IN the Louisville & Nashville case
to support his contention. He then
yielded the floor to M. D. Grover, gen
eral counsel for the Great Northern. Mr..
Grover. said that according to the COM
plainants the record in this case was
practically the same as in the suit
brought by the United States. The relief
| sought was the same. He then read from
the findings Of, fact in the federal case.
He challenged the statement that the
stock was transferred by an agreement
of the stockholders.
| The No; thorn Securities company, said
Mr.. Grover, Did an acs in regulation Of
| Interstate commerce when it purchased
the stock of the two roads This act was
subject to Inc regulation Of congress, and
not of the ten states thru which The roads
run. even tho it might be incidentally a
regulation of commerce within these
states. Yet i'm this case the act was
Charged with being violation of state
law, which makes 1t. a felony, altho there
can be no felony In the absence of Grim
inal intent. The state should have brought
the matter before the court in a criminal
case, and urged jury to convict the
stockholders Of a felony.
| I'VE admit" said Mr.. Grover, "that the
Northern Securities company owns a ma
| jority Of the stock of the two roads and
! that they are parallel and competing. This
has been declared by the learned judges
| to be a crime, intent being assumed from
the results of the act. 1t has rendered
a decree ordering the return of that stock.
Shall this court hand down another and
a conflicting decree? Then another decree
can be made in behalf of North Dakota,
and each other state. Should the supreme
court decide that the circuit judges erred
| in not following the louisville & Nash
vile case, then this case would come be-
fore your honor as an original question.
But while that decision stands, it cannot
properly come; before you on this COM
plant" ~
| Question OF Competition.
! Mr.. Grover then took up the question
of competition. He showed thru Mr.
| Hills testimony that competitive; inter
state traffic Of the two roads did not ex-
coed per cent, or 100000 year. The
foreign or oriental traffic was all COM
petitive.
while the flies have been buzzing, !"
Mr.; Grover acclaimed, land while the
$4,000 appropriation has. ben depleted by
| bringing Jim Leach down from North
| Dakota to testify, the cotton Of the south
has been going thru this state, three times
as much in the new regime as before
Grain rates have been reduced and mer-
chandise rates have been cut. The Great
Northern has been adding to its equip
ment and distributihg 81 the lumber Of the
west and the products OF the east to the
people living along its; entire system at
lower rates than ever. We are not de-
stroying competition, but meeting it. We
are not tearing down commerce, but
building it up ~ = -
/ Transactions Of 1901. tsSS
The transa ctions Fof May, 1901, were
! then reviewed to combat the theory that
| they were in pursuance Of merger plan.
The Hill argument of elf-defense was
used turnout to explain the Hill Morgan
purchase Of the Northern Pacific stock.