Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-12-14
A CONQUEST.

pany is the owner of about 90 per cent of
all the stock of the Northern Pacific Com
pany and the owner of about 16 per cent
Of all the stock of the Great Northern
Company. The scheme which was thus de-
vised and consummated led inevitably to
the following results:
First. 1t placed the control of the two
roads in the hands of single person, to
wit, the Securities Company, by virtue of
It's ownership of a large majority of the
stock of both companies.
Second. 1t destroyed every motive for
competition between two roads engaged in
interstate traffic which were natural COM
petitors for business by pooling the earn
ingS of the two roads for the common ben
eft of the stockholders of both companies,
and, according to the familiar rule that
every one is presumed to intend what is
the necessary consequence of his own acts,
when done willfully and deliberately, we
must conclude that those who conceived
and executed the plan aforesaid intended,
among other things, to accomplish those
objects"
The Attorney Generals Summary.
The Attorney Generals own summary of
the results is as follows:
ITO sum up the result of the aforemen-
toned exchanges OF Great Northern and
Northern Pacific stock for the stock of the
Securities Company, the latter company on
December II. 1901. had acquired and paid
for 900, 900 shares dn round fgures) of Great
Northern stock. the total capital stock of
the company consisting Of 1,250, 900 shares,
Of which 1.23O.O0O have been issued; and by
January l. 1902 the Securities Company had
acquired virtually all Of the common stock
Of the Northern Pacific Ghe preferred stock
was retired on that date. the resolution to
retire 1t having been passed in the preced-
ing November) its answer to the bill admit
ting that 1t held 1,5O0 600 Northern Pacific
shares out Of a total Of 1.550.O0O.
hoo %,~cy, IONS
that one and the same set OF men-Mr. Hill
and Mr.. Morgan and their associates being
the ruling spirits among them-acting to-
gether under q charter agreement ana
through the agency of a corporate organf-
zation became vested with absolute power
Of control over two parallel and competing
systems Of interstate railway. In place OF
the two distinct sets of stockholders with
rival and competing interests. namely. the
stockholders of the Great Northern and
Northern Pacific, there has been substituted
(by means Of interchange Of stocks describ-
ed the one set of stockholders with COM
mon and non-competitive interests namely
the stockholders Of the Securities Company.
'Thus identically the same persons VINO
controlled the Great Northern and Northern
Pacific before the securities company came
into possession OF majority OF their shares
control them now, only now these persons
have a common interest-'a community OF
interest-in the earnings Of both roads,
while formerly the interests Of the two sets
OF perSOn9-tu0 TWO sets VI otoChNoiuSIS-
were in most respects, divergent and COM
petitive. 1t borders on absurdity to say
that two railway corporations which, under
normal conditions are naturally compedt-
ors for traffic. will continue to compete in
any real sense after both become subject
to the same source of control. 1t is not in
the interest Of the stockholders Of the Sc
curities company that one Of these railways
should prosper at the expense Of the other.
They have common interest in both; they
receive their dividends from a fund created
by pooling the earnings of BOTH A more
effective method for combining competitive
interests-for suppressing competition be-
tween rival and naturally competing busl-
ness corporations-it would hardly be posi-
BILE to conceive"
The Questions Of Law.
The questions of law growing out Of the
statement of facts are presented as fol-
lows:
II. Has combination been accomplished
by means of the securities company in
violation of section of an act of Congress.
approved July g. 1890, entitled An act to
protect trade and commerce against unlaW-
full restraints and monopolies,' hereafter
called the antitrust act?
''2 Have the defendants monopolized or
attempted to monopoliZe any part of the
interstate or foreign commerce Of the
United States in violation Of section 2 of
the anti-trust act?
49, Was the relief granted by the cir
cult court authorized by law2
The government maintains that each of
these questions should be answered in the