The Minneapolis journal., 1903-04-10
OPINION or THE PRESS
What the New York Papers Say of the
*A. Merger Decision.

Merger Decision.
Special to The Journal.
New York April 10.--The Herald says:
The decision rendered yesterday by the
United States circuit court Of appeals at
St. Paul is momentous and far reaching.
Doubtless the officials of the Securities
company have prepared for all contingent
cies and all their skill and that of their
able counsel may be devoted to devfsinS
some substitute for holding company
by which common control of the railways
may be perpetuated The vastness OF the
interests affected may be understood from
the fact that about 81, 900 miles of rail-
way are involved, having capitalization
of more than $1,000, 100000 in bonds and
/ stocks. ~ ....
Neither the railways nor their earnings
nor their securities will be wiped out py
yesterdays decision that the holding
company is illegal and that its exchange
of securities must be undone. Assuming
that the highest tribunal will certainty
affirm this decision, it may be questioned
whether the trainers of the combination
would be wise in devising any new scheme
| for it's perpetuation. If the holding
principle were sustained, we might soon
| have one central ''holding company. with
executive committee of two or three men
| in control of the entire railway system OF
| the country. Such a situation would lead
/ to a clamor for government confscatlon.
or government control. substituting two or
| three federal officials for corporate eXecu-'
tiyes. The railways are now prosperous
and the owners of their securities con-i
! tented.
| Teh Times says that the decision w;r
necessarily cause much anxiety in COR
poration circles. How far will the courts
go in forbidding the purchase and rSwner-
ship of shares of other corporations? What
| other railroad mergers or sconsoiida tons
| will be attacked by the movement.
where will it stop? 1t will stop where
| it is, of course, until the supreme court
| has passed upon the decision handed down
! at ST. Paul. After that, should the prin-
| ciples of this opinion be affirmed, trouble
may be looked for in other quarters. 1t
! would appear that the reasoning Of the
/ court in the case Of the Northern Securi-
/ the corporation would be equally
applicable to private individuals
Say Messrs. Hill or Morgan, who by
acquiring majority of stock of two COM
/ peting roads have destroyed all motive for
/ rivalry and competition between them. =
From the point of view of public policy
i it would seem that there could be no diff
ference between a natural person and a
lcorporation in this respect.
4 ManiSestly, such application of the law
lforbidding acts in res traint Of trade would
RESTRAIN the right to buy and own proper
lty The court appears clearly to make
4 that construction of the law.
/ This is necessarily interference with
i the right to do business and it may apA
i pear to the general public to be some
4 what novel principle Underlying the
i principle is, of course. that the private
! right must not be so exercised as to do
public harm. That principle is old
enough.
4 It will not escape the attention of the
observant however, that by decisions like
this Securities case, the courts may actu-
4 ally do great public HARM A combination
4 formed in good faith not in restraint Of
i trade but to promote it. a great corpora
i ton which was source of public benefit,
4 would not for those reasons escape the en-
Il joining decree.