The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1903-12-18

Northern Pacific. He confined his
discussion largely to the decision OF
the circuit court in the case. Like
Mr.. he conceded that the
Sherman act overs all combination
IN restrain of trade. He ~contended.
however. that some latitude must be
allowed in defining what is a restraint
OF trade, and he said it was rather
startling to apply the law to and
make criminal. the consolidation of
two lines of railroad like the Great
Northern and the Northern Pacific,
as was done in their purchase by the
Northern Securities Company. Mr..
Bum laid down the general PROPOSE
ton that the acquisition of the stock
OF two railroad companies or Of one
company was not an act in restraint
of To say that because q
man owns the stock Of two parallel
roads he is going to restrain COM
merce, was contrary to fact and
might just as we'll be said Of a man
who owns one road.
Justice White interrupted Mr.. Bum
to inquire If he was to understand his
argument to maintain that the draw
ing Of articles Of consolidation was
not in itself a violation of the anti
trust law.
THAT is it precisely" answered Mr..
Bum.
Attorney General Knox followed. In
beginning Mr.. Knox outlined the at
titude of the government towards the
case, saying that it was ''one of grave
concern, based upon its conviction
that a mischievous evasion of the law
has been attempted, as we'll as upon
its especial interest in the relations
to one Of the properties affected.
Mr.. Knox made the following
points:
First, That the Northern Pacific
railroad vas built under the authority
Of the United States and in the main
with capital furnished by the United
States, and that the United States in
tended and attached the condition to
its contribution. that the railroad
should be a great Independent nation
al highway, and specified that the OBJ
ject of its construction was Ito pro-
mote the public interests"
Second. That by different devices
employed during the past ten years,
the defendants, or some of them, have
~endeavored to destroy the indepen-
dence of the Northern Pacific Com
pany n bring it under the dOmina-
ton of the Great Northern Company.
Third. That the Northern Securities
Company is an instrumentality de-
ViSed by defendants to acquire, hold.
and exercise control over these two
pdIdlItl anu ptlIllS lllleS vi Idl1-
road; TO destroy competition between
them, to create a monopoly of trans
~pOrtatiOn in the section serve by
them and to defeat the condition at
tached by the United States to the
franchise and land grants of the
Northern Pacific Company.
Upon this statement the attorne,
general based the following PROPOSE
tons:
First. That the rangemen affect
ed by defendants is a combination in
restraint of interstate commerce and
is illegal under the first section of
the Sherman act.
Second, That it constitutes a mo-
nopoly under the second section Of
that act.
Third, That the court has the pow
er to prevent, restrain, or otherwise
prohibit it.
The attorney general gave a detail
ed 0 of the attempt to secure
control of the Northern Pacific ROAD.
Mr.. Morgan, he said, knew of this at
tempt, sympathized with it and as
sured Mr.. Hill if he failed they could
work the two railroads In harmony.
The attorney general, concluding his
presentation of the evolution of the
securities company said: "These facts
clearly establish that it is an instru-
mentality treated to control the
Northern Pacific and Great Northern
railroads.. and through their owner
ship of the Burlington. to control
that o likewise"
At this point Justice White re-
minded Mr.. Knox that he had made
reference in the beginning of his
argument to the act of Congress Or
ganizing the Northern Pacific road,
and asked him if the case rests upon
hat act. Mr.. Knox replied that it
did not and added that he merely re-
ferred to that Legislation in reply to
the reflection that the government
mad undertaken to interfere in a case
in which it had 10 interest.
The attorney general was able, be-
fore adjournment, to announce only
one proposition by way of argument,
and that was contained in the follow
ing sentences:
This merger of interests was a
combination in restraint of commerce
among the states. and was intended
intention il is illegal, as by virtue OF
the combination it is guilty of the
mischief which the law is designed to
! prevent, namely it brings Transport
tation and trade throughout a vast
section of country under the c~ontroll-
ing influence Of a single body and de-
stroys any possible advantages the
public might have through any COM
petition between the two lines
The court adjourned unit tomor-
row.. when Mr.. knox will continue.
Atlanta. Ga, December 1.-THE d.