The pioneer press. (Miller, Hand County, S.D.) 1893-190?, 1903-08-06

all contracts made between railroad COM
panies for the purpose and having the
effect of preventing competition by Akin z
rates, or empowering persons TO fix them,
and agreeing 70 conform % them when
fixed, are In restraint OF trade and within
the provisions of the statute, whether
the rates so fixed are reasonable or un-
reasonable.
"(b) That contracts between divers
manufacturers OF commodity respect
ing their sales of that commodity 20 be
delivered by them outside the state, hav-
ing the direct effect of sitting compet-
tion and raising the cost OF the article
TO the purchaser. is also in restraint OF
trude and within the statute.
"tc) That contracts which do not d.
rectly ana necessarily affect transporta-
ton, or rates therefor. are not In re-
even though they may remotely and In
directly appear to have some probable
effect in that direction.
The state antitrust act must have
the same construction in respect TO traf-
iie on railroads within the state.
Does Not Control.
Neither the Great Northern company
nor the Northern Pacific company were
parties TO. or in their corporate capacity
had anything to do with the formation
of the Northern Securities company, nor
of any OF the contracts or proceedings
complained Of in the hill. The Northern
Securities company is merely an investor
in and owner OF a majority OF the stock
or each Of these two railroad companies
Ii is not a railroad company, and has
no franchise or power 10 manage or OPP
crate or direct the management or OPP
GRAFTON OF either railroad In respect TO
rates or charges for transportation, or
otherwise; and there Is no scintilla of
evidence that II has sought to control or
interfere in respect to any of these mat
tiers.
1T has. therefore, done no act and
made no contract in restraint of trade or
commerce. Owning now a majority of
the stock OF each of these railroad com
panies, II has the power by voting its
stock TO elect the board OF directors-the
governing body-Of each of these rail-
road companies But the board of d.
rectors Of each Is "A different body from
the board OF directors Of the other, as no
director Of the Great Northern company
can be director OF the Northern Pacihc
company. The directors Of each railroad
company Will appoint its managing and
other officers. and control its business
and policy. Presumably they will seek.
In lawful ways only, 10 Increase The bust
ness and property Of the railroad which
they as directors represent.
THE action Of the defendant Hin in
promoting the formation of the North
ern Securities company. under the cic-
cumstanCes and for the purposes which
the evidence discloses, and Investing in
its stock by the sale 10 IL OF his stock
In the two railroad companies. involved
10 act or contract in restraint Of trade
or commerce, or affecting transportation
or rates. more than any ordinary trans
fer of railroad stock from one person to
another.
Differs with Other Court.
THAT my judgment, after most care
full consideration Of the facts and the
law applicable thereto. as construed by
the highest court, leads me TO the con-
Clusion that none of the defendants have
violated the Minnesota antitrust act, a
conclusion apparently contrary TO that
reached by eminent judges who, in this
court, recently decided the case of Unit.
ed States VS.. Northern Securities COM
pany 100 Fed, T21, and who will doubt
less In another court review this cause
upon appeal, has necessarily caused hes
itation and careful examination. But the
rights of litigants and my own sense of
duty alike requires that my own DELHI
crate judgment guided by my under
standing Of authoritative expeditions of
the law, be given in all causes tried be-
fore me.
The decision Of the case last cited.
as ] read IL and understood IL, does not
specify or point out any contract, agree
ment or act on the part Of the defend
ants, or any Of them, which is directly
which has any direct reference TO trade.
commerce transportation or rates; nor
even any threat or avowed purpose on
the part of any defendant to do any
such act, or enter into any such con-
tract or agreement
But It Is argued that because the
Northern Securities company has become
the owner of large majority of the
rorations IL will be for its interest to
suppress competition between them, by
causing the two boards of directors of
these railroad corporations, which ii can
fill by election. TO enter into arrange
ments or agreements in restraint OF
trade, which will suppress competition:
and as a cOrollary to this reasoning (or
conjecture) the decision holds thai the
formation of the Northern Securities
company, and purchase by IL OF a ma
jority of the stock OF each Of these rail-
road comma mics = ~ in
restraint of trade, though of themselves.
and without further action (not yet
by the directors Of the two railroad com
panies, the formation Of The Northern
Securities company and It's holdings of
stock has and can have nothing TO do
directly or indirectly with trade, COM
rerce, transportation or rates
Guilty Before Offending.
ITO epitomize this decision: II is held
that IL will be for the interest of the
Northern Securities company to restrain
trade by suppressing competition between
these two railroad companies; and that
by coercng or persuading the two boards
OF directors, whom II has the power to
elect 1t will certainly cause them TO
commit highly penal offenses by enter
ing into combinations, contracts and ar
arrangements in restraint OF trade, in vio-
lation OF the antitrust act. and hence
the Northern Securities company is al
ready guilty OF these offenses that have
never been committed or thought of by
It's OUlCefS or promoters so far as APP
pears; and IL must be suppressed and de-
stroyed.
Il am compelled 10 reject the doctrine
that any person can he held 10 have COM
mitted, or 10 be purposing and about 10
commit highly penal offense, merely
because 4 can be shown that his pc
Cuntary interests viii be thereby adj
yanced, and that he has the power either
directly by himself. or Indirectly through
persuasion or coercion of his agents to
compass the commission of the offense.
No Consolidation.
"Third-The charge in the bill that the
acts Of the defendant contrayene the
statutes of Minnesota prohibiting the
consolidation CT parallel and competing
lines of railroad presents. a different
question
"Chapter 20, General Laws Of Mime
sofa, 1ST4, provides as stated:
No railroad corporation or the les
sors, purchasers or managers OF any rail-
road corporation, shall consolidate the
stock, property or franchise of such cor
poration with, or lease or purchase the
works or franchise OF, or in any way
control any other railroad corporation
owning or having uSder its control a
parallel or competing npe
This Is the only statute on that cub
ject of consolidating parallel and COM
peting railroads that need be considered,
as IL covers whatever is contained in any
other. This statute Is a /Xalid exercise
of the police power of tfe etateA Louis
VILE etc.. Railroad VS.. HentuckyalA U.
g. CIT. ~.
''The prohibitions against oor.sStla }4lps