Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-12-15

STOCK nave the property right to trans
Ter tnelr shares, and it would be an alb
| sufGity 10 speak of such transfer be
| tween individuals as a crime. He con
| tended That corporations should have tn,
same rights as individuals.
! justice White INTERRUPTED Mr.. Johnso,
to observe that as he understood the poin
it would be unlawful for a CORPORATION Il
do what an individual might do.
! Mr.. johnson then reverted 70 the Gecis
ION OF the circuit court against the Secu
rites Company because it has the power
10 restrain trade. declaring that this de
cision was something new in jurispru-
dence.
AT this point the court took a recess
for luncheon.
Alter recess Mr. Johnson resumed his
argument, taking up his fifth propos;-
ton, relating TO monopoly He said that
Congress had failed to give an adequate
definition of the word
Coming to his sixth proposition. that il
under the Sherman act a union like that
OF the Northern Pacific and the Great
Northern Pacific is a combination in re-
stralnt Of trade. the law must be held
unconstitutional and equal to a complete
prohibition Of commerce.
Mr.. Johnson closed his argument at 3
O'Clock with a plea to the court to de-
mand of the attorney general the cita-
ton OF some law as authority to strike
down the Northern Securities Co.
MIR. johnson was followed by c. W.
Bum. who spoke especially fer the North
erE Pacific. He confined his discussion
Ia rpnIv tn Of III
in the case. He said it was IL ther start
ling to apply The law to, and make GRIM
inal the consolidation Of two lines of rail-
road like the G,eat Northern and the
Northern Pacific. as was dorc in their
purchase by the Securities Co. Discuss
ing the question of state control he con-
tended that the question pertains to all
legislation affecting Interstate commerce,
and that Congress had no control of IT,,
transfer OF sock. Tho court Lc!ow held
and he SAID the attorney general will
urge, that The acquisition of this stock
for the Northern Securities co. makes
ii for plain sclf-intcroSt to- restrain com
merce. TO say that because 4 man owns
the stock of two parallel roads h is; GO
ing to restrain commerce was contrary
to fact and might Just as we'll be said of
a man who owns one road. Mr.. Bum DIS
cusScd the trans iissouri case. and con-
tended that the restraint imposed in the
case was only upon individuals.
This case must stand. he said. if two
roads had been bought by "a common own
CT roder state control. There could be
no duality of control.
Justice White interrupted Mr. Bum to
i,f 6n do.
mert to maintain that the drawing of ar
ticlas of consolidation was not in itself |
a violation Of the antitrust law
THAT is it precisely" answered Mir |
Bum.
Mr. Bum commended that there had |
been no consolidation. Mr.. Bum wa /
followed by Attorney General Knox |
for the United States. Mr.. Knox said !
the case Was ''one of grave concern. !
based upon the governments convic-
ton that misc hieyous evasion of tho |
law has been attempted. as well as !
upon its especial interest in and rela- |
tons to one of the properties affected
He reviewed the principal facts con- |
nected with the history of the North |
ern Pacific Co. and those out of which |
the present question arises. His state !
lEent in this connection follows:
'F'irst-That the Northern Pacific |
railroad was built under the authority |
of the United States and that 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 rail |
road should be Il great independent !!
-, 4 30
the object of its construction was t. |
promote the public interests.
"Second-That by different devices !
during the past 10 years the !
defendants or some of them have en- |
deavorcd to destroy the independence !
of the Northern Pacific Co. and bring /;
it under the domination OF the Great (;
Northern co.
"'rhird-Thpt the Northern Securi- |
ties co. is an instrumcntality devised +
by defendants to acquire, hold and eX- i
ercise control over these two parallel /
and competing lines of railroads. to
destroy competition between the great
of transportation in the Sec
ton served by them ana to defeat the
condition attached by the United
States to the franchise and land grants
of the Northern Pacific
Upon this statement the attorney
general based the following PROPOSE
tons:
t-irst-Thal the arrangement effected
by the defendants is 4 combination in
l restraint of interstate commerce and
is Illegal under the first section of the
act OF July >, 1880 Uhe Sherman anti
trust ac).
Second--That ii constitutes Il monop-
oily under the second section Of that
act.
Third-That the court has the power
10 prevent. restrain or otherwise pro-
iliDit it.
He said the Northern Pacific Rail-
road co. was chartered under the pro-
visions of an act of Congress approved
July >. 1864. and was authorized to
construct n railroad which by the 11t,l
section of the act shall be Il post
route and military road. subject to the
use of the United States for postal
military. naval and other government
service"
In other words. said MIR. Knox, Con-
eress gave the peoples land to the
Northern Pacific Railroad Co. and to