The San Francisco call., 1903-12-15

guments in the case Of the Northern
Securities Company, James J. Hill, j.
Pierpont Morgan. Daniel S. Lamont ana
others vs.. the United States, coming
10 this court on appeal from the de-
cision Of the Circuit Court for the Dis
trict Of Minnesota. That decision was
10 the effect that the purchase OF the
greater share of the stock Of the two
railroad companies constituted mer-
ger and was contrary to the Sherman
antitrust law. The case involves the
mnunitv-of-interest principle
The courtroom was crowded Attor-
ney General Knox was present with
quite an array Of assistants from his
Office. while the opposition also was
represented by a long list uf distin-
esiished counsel. including former At
fornev General Griggs John G. John
son Of Philadelphia, c. ". Bum and
Charles B. Young
JOHNSON OPENS ARGUMENT
John G. Johnson. representing the
Northern Securities Company. made the
first argument. After stating the case
johnson said that the purpose Of the
securities company in acquiring the
stock Of the railroad company had been
not 10 prevent competition, but TO pre-
vent injury Of its own property He
took sharp exception to the decision Of
the Circuit Court that the possession OF
the power which the securities company
had was g violation OF the law and con-
tended that such holding was not in ae-
cordance with decisions Of the Supreme
Court. which were uniformly TO the
effect that il was the use Of power and
not the possession Of it that constituted
the offense. Johnson made his argu-
unent on six propositions, which he out
Ined as follows:
First-That there was no agI cement
contract. combination or conspiracy to
restrain competition between these two
railway companies or TO restrain trade.
Seoond-That if two railway COM
panies. somewhat in competition with
themselves. decide il necessary, in or
der to sustain their competition against
a third company, which otherwise could
destroy them or greatly interfere with
their usefulness to the public. to COM
bine in any way FOR the purpose Of pro-
tecting themselves against destruction,
the court must look to the matter as
one II fact 10 determine whether the
real purpose was TO destroy or to lead
10 the destruction in order TO promote
trade by the establishment Of the
greater competition.
Third-That if the holding by the
Northern Securities Company Of a ma
jority Of the shares of the two COM
panies was a violation Of the Sherman
act. Of course an agreement among any
number Of persons would be a viola
tiOn Of that act.
Fourth-That the first section Of the
Sherman act does not IN any way con-
denim as illegal the acquisition or own
ership Of the shares of the two COM
peting companies.
Fifth-That the second section of the
Sherman act does not in any way con-
denim the acquisition and holding Of
sub ownership Of shares.
SiXth-That if the sherman act does
condemn as illegal the ownership of a
controlling interest in the shares of
the competing railway companies it is
unconstitutional.
SPEAKS FOR NORTHERN PACIFIC.
johnson was followed by c. w Bum,
who spoke especially for the Northern
Pacific. Said he:
The parallel telegraph lines Of the
country stand on the same footing as
parallel railway lines, and it is COM
mon knowledge that nearly all the
telegraph lines Of the country have
gradually come into control OF two
companies. In the same way you
have got 10 hold that the acquisition
Of parallel steambo lines is a re-
straint on interstate commerce. And
so. if a few individuals owning stock
in carrying corporations should unite
into partnership, turning the stock in
as partnership assets, you would have
the same unity of ownership and the
same conspiracy and agreement and
likewise the same power of control
that you have in this case, and my
question is whether it is really a sub
5ect Of Federal control or a subject of
State control"
KNOX STATES HIS CASE.
Bum was followed by Attorney
General Knox for the United States.
In beginning Knox outlined the atti-
tude Of the Government toward the
case, saying that it was "one of grave
concern. based upon its conviction
that q mischievous evasion Of the law
had been attempted. as well as upon
its special interest and relations TO
one Of the properties affected" In or
der that the court might understand
the reasons for this concern, ne re-
viewed the principal facts connected
with the organization and subsequent
history OF the Northern Pacific Com
pany, its relations to the Great North
ern Railroad and other facts out OF
which the questions in this case arise
but without extended comment. His
statement OF facts in this connection
was as follows:
"First-That the Northern Pacific
Railroad was built under the author
ity Of the United States and, in the
main, with capital furnished by the
United States. and that the United
States intended, and attached the con-
dition TO its contribution. that the
railroad should be a great, independ-
ent national highway, and specified
that the object Of its construction was
to promote the public interest,"