New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-15
NEyv-Yoa1s DAILY TRIBUNE TUESDAY. DECEMBER Il. 1908

roads He also said that under the combination
il had become possible to carry -four from the
Mississippi Valley to China. 1900 miles by rail and
200 miles bv water at so cents a barrel while,
going the other way. a distance Of 1850 miles. the
freight charge IS cents barrel AFTER cl'ihe
many other figures OF low rates ana extensive
tonnage. Mr.. Johnson said:
Ins+ead NJ being n combination for the restraint
of trade the whole purpose is to protect ana de-
velop trade.
Mr.. Johnson did not discuss his second
proposition at length. but soon passed 10
the third. He admitted in the beginning 'hat u
there WAS a combination for restrain OF uaoe
that must end the case. In regard to THIS point
he said:
If the ownership OF the controlling interest was as
in restraint Of trade then that was s ths @ in
restraint Of trade then it matters not what TN. the
ownership vas for, whether for monopoly OF o'"ei
purpose
He then took up tie two questions whether;
the co6ination Of the two EailFo2 TiolS e8,
OF the Sherman a2t: and ..,o
. II it IS, Is that act constitutional!
Discussing the first question. ne admitted that
tho decisions Of this SQUIRT are to the eject that
the Sherman law has reference TO the restraint
Of trade by conspiracy along all lines but he con-
tended that in the present case there had been no
such combination. This contention he based on
the fat that in this there had been SAFE
third party. and added:
You therefore are confronted. rot with prop
one another for restraint Of trade. but by case
where persons sell their property 70 aro'et fadrai
court? Where is there a case In when ~ MdS
of a property is a contract, combination or con-
spiracy in restraint Of trade
CORPORATION AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
He urged that the owners of shares of stock
have the property risht 20 transfer their shares'
and II would be an absurdty TO speak of such
i,,diy hal n
We" he asked, stretching the English language
beyond precedent in putting criminal construc-
ton on this transaction He contendeo that
corporations should have the same rights as in
div.duas. To contend otherwise, ne oeclaFeu'
would lead untold mischief.
Justice White interrupted Mr. johnson TO OBJ
serve that as he understood the point It would be
unlawful for a corporation TO do what an IN
dividua might do In which case cohuhued
the Justice you leave the power to corpete only
in the hand of very wealthy individual is not
the answer TO this that the facility with which
corporations can be formed renders much more
feasible the existence Of competition thAn "oulo
exist in case only a very rich man could exercise
that power?'
Mr. Johnson admitted in reply that that was
common sense view and then reverted TO the
decision Of the Circuit Court against the securl-
ties company because It has the power 10 re-
strain trade Mr. Johnson declared that tms
decision was something new in Jurisprudence
Few of us have a desire to commit murder ne
said. but many OF us use a razor, which gives
US the power TO murder.
Al this point the court took recess Tor
luncheon.
After recess Mr.. Johnson resumed his argument
taking up his fifth proposition. relating to monop-
DIV He said that Congress had failed TO give an
ADEQUATE definition Of the word Originally II
meant an exclusive grant but did the acquisition
Of one railroad or of two prevent others from
building other roads?
Coming to his sixth proposition. that II under the
sherman act a union like that Of the Northern
Pacific and the Great Northern is a combination
in restraint of trade the law must be held uncon-
stitutlonal Mr. johnson argued that II the purport
of the law was as stated it would be equal to
complete prohibition Of commerce.
Mr. Johnson closed his argument at O'Clock
with plea to the court to demand of the Attor-
new General the citation of some law as authority
to strike down the Northern Securities Company.
You may strike down this corporation he said
'and undoubtedly you will strike ii down II you md
that its existence is IN violation OF the law. even
though In so doing you destroy commerce of mag
nitude almost beyond our powers of imagination In
the future. But ! respectfully submit that you ask
Of the Attorney General when he demands that you
strike it down the presentation TO you of some law
that clearly and Enthusiastically pronounces as
crime that which he asks YOU to condemn,