The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-12-15
MISREPRESENTATION
Counsel Johnson Declares Was the
Object of the Merger.


Washington, Dec. 15.-John j..
johnson of Philadelphia, counsel for
the Northern Securities company,
made the first argument in the appeal
against the decision Of the circuit
court before the supreme court of the
United States yesterday.
After stating the case Mr.. Johnson
said that the purpose of the securities
company in acquiring the stock Of the
railroad company had been not to pre-
vent competition, but to prevent the
injury of it's own property.
Early in the argument Justice Peck
ham asked whether the securities COM
pany held the major portion Of the
stock Of the two companies, and Mr.
johnson admitted that the company
held nearly all the stock. He con-
tended that holding the stock it had
the authority to control it.
He took sharp exception to the de
cision Of the circuit court that the
possession Of the power which the
securities company had was a viola
ton of the law. and contended that
such holdings was in accordance with
the decisions of the supreme court,
which were uniformly to the effect that
it is the use of power and not the pos
session of it that constitutes the Of
Tense.
Mr. Johnson said that what he had
to say would be stated in six PROPOSE
lions, which he outlined briefly, as
follows:
Securities Company's Points.
The first is that there was no agree
ment, contract, combination or con-
spiracy to restrain competition be-
tween these two railway companies,
or to restrain trade. But that, ON the
contrary, whatever contract or under
standing there was in the case, as es-
&oI 1jc1,n l.
mony. was to enlarge, to create, and
in every way possible to improve
trade and commerce.
The second proposition is if that
two railway companies. somewhat in
competition with themselves, decide
It necessary in order to sustain their
competition against a third company,
which otherwise could destroy them
or greatly interfere with their USE
fulness to the public, to combine in
any way for the purpose of protect
ing themselves against destruction
and in order, by means of that pro-
lection, to make greater Competl-
ton with a greater rival on - great
scale for their advantage and for the
public, the court must look to the
matter as one Of fact, to determine
whether the real purpose was to de-
stroy or to lead to the destruction in
order to promote trade by the estab-
lishment Of the greater competition.
The third proposition is that If the
holding Of the Northern Securities
company of the minority of the
shares of the two companies was a
violation of the Sherman act, of course
an agreement among any number
of persons would be a violation Of
that act.
The fourth proposition is that the
first section of the Sherman act does
not in any way condemn as Illegal
the acquisition or ownership of the
shares of the two competing COM
panies.
The fifth proposition is that the
second section of the Sherman act
does not in any way condemn the
ACQUISITION and holding Of such own
ership of shares.
The sixth proposition is that if the
Sherman act does condemn as illegal
the ownership Of a controlling inter-
est in the shares of the competing
railway companies, that it is uncon-
stitutional
MI Johnson contended that there
has been no thought Of restraining
competition in uniting the ownership
of the two railroad companies, but
that on the contrary the purpose had
been to enlarge and promote the trade.
He admitted that if there had been
an agreement to restrain interstate
commerce that would constitute a di-
rect violation Of the Interstate COM
nlerce law and also conceded that it
was inmaterial what the intent had
been. He knew we'll enough. he said,
that the decision of the court would
be based upon the acts performed and
came upon the statement of motives.
Mr.. Johnson characterized the pur-
chase of the Burlington as one "of
those bold emf ernriSeS nv which a the