The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-08-02

stock the Great Northern company:
The evidence therefore falls to snow
that the Northern Securities company
was formed for the purpose OF acqulr,-
ing and holding majority OF the stock
of the Great Northern. company, as We'll
as that of the Northern Pacific company.
Although that result followed soon AFTER,
and may have been desired and anticf-
pated.
Antitrust Law Considered.
Sacond-One question in this cause is
whether the acquisition by the Northern
Securities company, in the manner ABOVE
stated, of majority OF me cap .,
and Northern Pacific companies, which
own and operate parallel and compel
ing railroads across the state of Mn
is a violation OF the Minnesota anti
trust law, laws of Minnesota, 1893, G.
369, which provides as above stated,
that: ANY contract agreement, ar
rangement, or conspiracy or any COM
bination in the form of a trust or other
wises hereafter entered into, which Is
in restraint of trade or commerce with
in this state, is hereby prohib-
tied and declared to be unlawful Lam
guage in the act intending these pro-
visions to interstate, commerce is here
omitted ana disregarded and the act
considered valid as to trade and COM
merce within the state, that being
proper subject for state legislation
though carried on by the same instru-
mentalities used in interstate COM
merce. The language just quoted is evf.
IDENTIFY taken from the act Of congress or
July 2, 1890 (26 Stat. 200, c. CAD, known
as the Sherman antitrust act, which has
received consideration by the supreme
court of the United States in several
cases.
In United States VS.. E. c.. Knight COM
pany, 156 U. S. L. the American Sugar
Refining company, a New Jersey corpora
ton already in control of most OF the
manufactures of refined sugar In the
United States, purchased with shares or
its own stock, the stock of four Philadel-
phia refineries, and acquired nearly COM
plete control of that business in the
country. 1t was charged that the con-
tracts under which these purchases We're
made constituted combinations in re-
straint of trade, and that by entering into
them the defendants combined and con-
spired to restrain the trade and commerce
in refined sugar among the several states
and with foreign nations.
Held, that though the contracts OF
purchase of these reflneries would re-
suit in a monopoly in the manufacture
of refined sugar, an article certain to
enter into commerce, yet the manufac-
ture of the article was no part of COM
merce, even though to dispose of the prod
uct the instrumentality of commerce
uct would not enter into commerce till
transportation began, and the contracts
had no reference to transportation.
Trans Missouri Case cited.
In the United States VS.. Trans Missouri
Freight Association, 16 u. S., $50, it was
held that the Sherman antitrust act
applied to railroads. and prohibited all
contracts in restraint of trade, whether
reasonable or unreasonable, and also that
articles of agreement by which seventeen
railroad companies formed that aSSocia-
ton, in which each railroad company had
representative, empowering the aSso-
citation to fix reasonable rates for the
transportation of freight on said rail-
roads (many of whom were competitlVe),
and change such rates On proper coca
sion, and binding the railroad companies,
under penalties, to conform their charges
for transportation to the rates SO to be
established, was a contract in violation
Of that antitrust act. Plainly, the oil
rect and only object of this agreement
was it's provision for the fixing, con-
trolling and maintaining rates for the
transportation of freight over these rail-
roads.
United States vs.. Joint Association. III
u. S., sos. was like the case last cited.
The association was formed between
thirty-on railroad companies, engaged in
transportation between Chicago and the
Atlantic coast. The association formed
of representatives of the companies was
given control over competitive Transports
ton of freight and passengers, with pow
er to fix rates, fares and charges and
change the same from time to time; and to
these rates the railroad companies bound
themselves to conform. The principal diff
ference between this case and the one last
mentioned was that by the terms of this
agreement the association was to cooper
ate with the interstate commerce COM
mission to secure stability and uniform
lished 1t was held that this agreement
/ also viola ted the ANTITRUST act. !