Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-04-09
CONCLUSIONS OF COURT.

Circuit Judge Thayer stated the con.
clusions Of the court He recltes the
petition which was brought under the
antitrust act OF 1880 and adds that
under the act of Feb. II, 1903. this case
being Of general public importance"
had been given precedence over others
and in every way expedited It is de-
clared that under the admissions Of the
defendants the matters of fact are that
The roads were parallel and competing
lines, that they had jointly secured cen
trol Of the Burlington. that i'm 1901 a
holding company had been formed b.
large owners Of the stock Of the North
ern Pacific and Great Northern rail
7ays by which new company large
stock interests had been acquired AT
al agreed price, and the court holds
That the scheme which was thus de-
viFod and consummated led inevitab
20 the following results
First II placed the control OF the
two roads In the hands Of single per-
sons to wit the Securities company. by
virtue of its ownership Of a large ma
1ority Of the stock Of both companies:
second, II destroyed every motive for
competition between two roads engag-
ed In Interstate traffic which were
natural competitors for business. bv
pooling the earnings OF the two roads
fer the common benefit Of the stock
holders Of both companies: and. &C
Cordlng to the familiar rule that every
one Is presumed 10 intend what Is ~
necessary consequence Of his own acts
when done wilfuliy and deliberately,
. hg
served and executed the plan aforesaid
intended among other things, TO accom-
plish these objects"
ANTITRUST ACT.
On the point whether the presen,
case comes within the inhibition of the |
antitrust act. the court discusses the |
meaning Of the word trust In the act |
ard adds that Congress was careful 10 |
-eclare that combination In any other |
form, II I'm restraint OF interstate trade |
or commerce, that Is II II directly oc- |
,asioned or effected such restraint |
should likewise be deemed Illegal
Moreover In cases arising under the |
lct II has been held by the highest ju-
ilcial authority In the nation and It's |
opinion has been reiterated In no UNI
certain tone, that the act applies 10 in
orstate carriers Of freight and pas
'engers as well as TO an other per-
IONS, natural or artifcial that the
'ords In restraint OF trade or com
nerce' do not mean IN unreasonable
r partial restraint o. trade or com
nerce but any direct restraint thereof
lat an agreement between competing
which requires them 10 act In
oncert In fixing the rate for the car
iage Of passengers or freight over their
efpectvc lines from one state 10 an
Tier and which, bv that means. re-
;icts temporarily the right Of any
ther Of such carriers 20 name such
ates for the carriage Of such freight
r passengers over It's road. as Il
leases Is a contract IN direct restraint |
( commerce within the meaning Of /
he act, IN that Is tends 10 prevent COM
eiition' that II matters not whether.
nile acting under such n contract.
he rate fixed IN reasonable or unrea-
rnable. the vice Of such contract or
being that It confers the
ever 10 establish unreasonable
ltes and directly restrains commerce
y placing obstacles IN the way Of free
nd unrestricted competition between
'Iriers who are naturally rivals for
atronage. and finally that Congress
rs the power. under the grant OF au-
iority contained In the federal Con-
tuition to regulate commerce. 10 say
lat no contract or combination shall
legal which shall restrain inter-
ate trade or commerce By shutting