The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1903-12-09
RAID WAS CAUSE
OF BIG MERGER
Northern Securities Company
Files Interesting Brief.
Plea FOR CONSOLIDATION
HILL AND MORGAN AFRAID OF
UNION PACIFIC.

1T7ASHINGTON Dee. S.-Bri5fs I'm
w behalf OF Che Northern Securities
company and the Northern Pa
ciiie Railway company in the case OF
the United States ys. those two compa-
MES and the Great Northern. company
We're filed I'm the supreme court today.
The briet-of the secUrities company is
b. George b. Young. and that % the
northern Pacific hy C.. w Bum Mr.
AGungs brief is 4 document OF over 300
pages. and i'm I'll he traces infinitely the
origin of the merger. The movement
Tor this consolidation he attributes
largely 20 the raid of May. 1901 by hcs-
tile interests on Northern Pacific stock
which it was considered most important
TO prevent. He says.
The Union Pacific interests still held
@5t,OO0,CV0 o. the Northern Pacific COM
mon stock Between 81. 100000 and 81
t00Oo0 were not held by either of the
parties The loss % $3.OO0000 from tho
majority holdings might occur from
various causes and the attack JUS, de-
Ieaied might be renewed with success
by the same or other ASSISTANTS
He says that I'm this emergency
Messrs. Morgan and Hin saw clearly
mat they must depend upon themselves
and not upon the law for protection.
They had every reason TO believe ar.
Young continues, that such a holding
as that of the Union Pacific I'M the
Northern Pacific was not contrary to
the antitrust law and the .inactiOn of
the attorney general showed that this
was also the opinion of that high Off
cial charged with the enforcement Of
the antitrust act"
First Plan Abandoned.
company but, Mr. Young says. it was
quickly abandoned. The first thought
was to Incorporate under the laws Of
Minnesota, but il was found impracti-
cable TO secure an acceptable charter
i'm that state. consequently the papers
were filed in New Jersey.
on the question of consolidation in
the securities company, Mr.. Young
says:
Its ownership Of the shares of the
two railway companies no more cOnSOl-
idates or pools or merges those shares.
or the two companies, or their property,
than the ownership Of two pieces of
real estate By the same person con-
sOlidates them or the title 10 them"
He asserts that "the only cOmbinR-
ton OF which there Us any evidence IS
a combination formed in aid Of com
merce. to liberate. protect and enlarge.
liberated. protected. aided and enlarged
it. and has not restrained and dQes-uOt
threaten 20 restrain
The brief of Alr. Runn is an argument
t0>shOw that the action Of the TWO rail-
road companies did not come within
the antitrust act. He says:
THE statute must be interpreted so
as to fall with the executive powers of
congress Construed as the circuit court
read it or as the learned attorney gem
eral asks TO have il read. the act seems
to us far beyond the scope Of those
powers 1t is nothing less than an over
turning of all settled rules upon the
subject to say that the power Of con-
gress extends to determining u what
corporations stock may be neld by citi-
zens Of the state. or that 10 extends
to the regulations of the consolidation
and merger of railway companies char
tered by the states.