The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-03-19
Four United States Judges Listening
Importance to Corporations.
AN ARMY OF LEGAL TALENT
FIRST ADDRESS MADE BY ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL BECK,
Who Pointed to the Wabash Injunc-
ton as an Example OF the Dfscrim-
nation Railways Desire.

in the history of the United States courts
and by authority of special act OF Con-
gress passed last February four United
States Circuit judges, are sitting together
to hear arguments in a case, the trial be-
| ing the fight of the government against
the Northern Securities Company of New
| Jersey, in the celebrated merger suit. IN
| der this special act the United States Cir
cult Court for the District OF Minnesota is
holding its session In st. Louis, in the APP
| pellate Court room. and by this arrange
ment the case can go Immediately from
| this court to the Supreme Court of the
United States, whereas in the general court
proceeding it would necessarily go through
the Circuit Court of Appeals and delay of
| from two to three years probably would
ensue. The hearing of the case in St. Louis
| Is merely for the personal convenience of
those concerned.
The four Judges before whom the merger
case is being argued are United States Cir
cult Judges Caldwell, Sandborn, Thayer
and Van Devanter, Judge Caldwell presid-
ing. The attorneys for the government
are Assistant Attorneys General James NJ.
Beck and William II. Day, and Special
| Counsel d. 7. Watson, of Pittsburg; United
States Attorney d. p. Dyer, Of st. Louis,
assisting. For the Northern Securities
| Company are former Attorney General
| John w. Griggs, former Judge George b.
Young, Of st. Paul; M. d. Grover, general
attorneys for the Great Northern Railroad.
and c. w; Bum, general attorney for the
Most of to-day's session was taken I'D
with the presentation of argument for the
| government by Assistant Attorney General
Beck. After he had concluded late in the
afternoon, argument for the Northern Sc
| curities Company was begun by former
Judge George b. Young, of st. Paul. AS
speaking soon after court convened at 10
| o'clock and with the exception of two
hours of recess he spoke continuously un-
| til 1852 p. m. The court room was crowded
to hear his argument.
MR.. BECK'S ARGUMENT.
Attorney Beck referred to the Wabash in
junction case Which is being tried in the
United States District Court at the other
end of the building, saying that the laws
were such that employees of a railroad who
did not own one cent Of stock, or one rail
| of the road, could be enjoined from strik-
ing and thereby interfering with the inter-
state-commerce act by stopping traffic; but
that unless this court so ruled the govern
ment was powerless to prevent the owners
of railroads themselves from merging pre-
venting competition and thereby interfer-
| ing with the very points the Interstate
| commerce act sought to protect.
In his argument Attorney Beck said in
part: THE right to vote the stock operates
directly upon interstate commerce. for it
necessarily regulates such commerce. At
annual meetings of the constituent systems
the Northern Securities Company, through
its proxies. can by resolution direct its
servants. whom it selects to increase rates
or to lower them, TO refuse traffic or to ac-
cept it, to give preferences or to decline
them. to borrow money or to spend it, to
| h.rld GvfQ ar n ha nd nyfcf inc
lines. This power to do constitutes that
| monopoly of commerce which is not mere
ly directly related to commerce, but is the
| ers who, at an annual meeting, determine
the policy of the road are as much engaged
in commerce as the locomotive engineer
servant. propels a train from st. Paul to
Seattle. indeed, the act of the engineer is
the act of the owners, and such ownership
not merely relates to but is interstate COM
merce.
"To enjoin the employees of an interstate
railroad from interfering by a boycott with
authority to control the employer who seeks
to hide behind a paper charter would be q
monstrous and indefensible anomaly In the
law. None such exists.
Defendants further contend that in fac
| they have only done that which others have
done both before Sh AND subsequent sec, 70 tne
} words. they make the extraordinary plea
that their unlawful act should suffer no in
reference at the hands Of the law because
others have been guilty of the same viola
tons of the law. 1t may be admitted thai
long prior to the federal legislation in ques
ton there had been steady process o.
consolidation between the great raiiwa,
interests of the country. Many of thes,
; consultations were in no sense restrictive
of commerce. but were legitimate ant
healthy extensions of existing lines. Others
were specifically authorized by States with
In whose borders the railways ran. Other,
| took place before the passage of the fed
eral antitrust law and could not be gov
erneS by its provisions. Apart from this
and conceding the existence of other VIC
lations, the absurdity of the argument tina
a man can claim immunity because other
: had been guilty Of similar violation Is $,
transpi rent that defendants counsel seel
: to hide it under the suggestion that thi
I testimony. Is offered to prove a contem
: poraneous construction of the statute
CASE WITHOUT PRECEDENT.
1.-THE antitrust law of 1890 is of recen
passage and has been the subject Of con
E. siderable litigation. Many cases have beer
instituted under it. No instance is cited IN
the list of supposed violations OF the Law
e where two corporations have transferred
nearly all of their capital stock to a thrs
, corporation created expressly for the pur
.. pose of insuring perpetual unity OF owner
+ Ship Such Is the present case. Until
can be shown that a similar case exist
upon which no executive action was takel
the argument from contemporaneous con
| struction becomes wholly uatenable. Eve
IL such case could be cited the action o
| nonaction of the officers of the govern
Z | ment cannot nullify the will of Congress.
1.-The defendants further contend that
though the merger does restrict interstat
|, | commerce, 1t accomplishes vaster purpose
r | in the development OF traffic This rs IN
! familiar argument of the beneficence o
: | monopoly. 1t should be addressed to Con
: | gress and not to the courts The benefit
the people OF this merger may be all tina
it's master spirit. Mr.. James j. Hill. in hi
argumentatfve testimony, claims IL to bt
but / apprehend that the people will cor
| tnue to entertain their old-fashioned preju
!, | dice against monopoly, and the argument
u addressed to the courts will fall upon a
! deaf ears In this respect as when addresse
q States Immediately affected
n IF the merger Is so beneficial the en-
phatic protest of the executive officers c
five States would seem TO be unnecessar,
However. these questions are all for IN
Legislature and not the judicial branch c
the government. 1t is possible that IN
70 concentration of property interests incluf
ing railroad transportation, Is an economi
lie tendency which is as Irresistible as grav
l. tation, and that the law itself will be a
Il impotent TO stop II as 10 challenge by iegis
n lative enactment the procession OF the STAR
This, however, neither the officers or IN
law nor the courts charged with the duty {
interpreting and enforcing II can recof
nize.
"The American people are both conservs
:. | tive and practical and when they recogniz
- that monopoly Is beneficent and competttfo
3t | Il An evil they Will repeal existing Law