The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1903-04-14

St. Paul, Mimi. April 9.-The posi-
ton of the United States government
in the suit brought against the North
ern Securities Company, the Northern
Pacific and Great Northern railways
and Individual officials and directors of
those companies, was sustained in the
decision handed down in the United
States circuit court of appeals in this
city today The case was originally
brought in the United States by the
court here, but under a special act of
congress was taken at once to the court
of appeals, which court was to ex-
pedite the hearing and decision of the
case, in every manner possible.
The taking of testimony in this city
and in New York lasted for several
weeks and the in ST. Louis.
before Circuit Judges Caldwell, San
born, Thayer and ~VanDeYanter took
several days. The decision of the court
was written by Judge Thayer and was
filed in this city. where the original ac-
ton was instituted. An appeal to the
United States supreme court will be
taken Immediately All four judges
cOncurred in the conclusions of the
court, which were tated by Circuit
Judge Thayer.
Judge Thayer in the opinion, recites
the petition which was brought under
the antitrust act of 1890, and adds that
under the act of February II, 1903, this
case, being of general public impOr-
tance," has been given precedence over
others and in every way expedited. 1t
is declared that from the admissions of
the p~leadings, the matters of fact are
that the roads were parallel and COM
peting lines, that they had jointly Sc
cured control of the Burlington Line,
that in 1901 a holding company had
been formed, by large owners of the
stock of the Northern Pacific and Great
Northern railways, by which new COM
pany, large stock interests had been ac-
quired at an agreed price and the court
holds that the scheme which was thus
devised and contaminated led ineVitab-
~ to the following esults
First. it placed the control of the two
roads in the hands of a single person,
to wit. the Securities Company, by Vir-
tue of its ownership and a large ma
jOrity of the stock of both companies;
second, it destroyed every motive for
competition between two roads engaged
in Interstate traffic, which were nat
ural competitors for business, by pool
ing the earnings of the two roads for
Liz COIIllIIOIl DeIlelll u lit SlOChIIOluSIS
of both companies: and. according to
the familiar rule that every one is pre-
Sumed to intend what is the necessary
consequence of his own acts. when done
Wilfullv and deliberately, we must con-
clude that those who conceived and eX-
ecuted the plan aforesaid intended,
among other things, to accomplish these
objects.
On the point whether the present case
comes within the inhibition of the anti
trust act, the court discusses the mean
ing of the word trust, as used in the
act, and adds that congress was care
full to declare that a combination in
any form, in restraint of Interstate
trade or that is. if it di-
rectly occasiOned or effected such re-
straint. should likewise be deemed il
legal. Moreover, in cases arising under
the act, it has been held by the highest
federal authority in the nation and it's
resolution has been reiterated, that the
act applies to interstate carriers of
freight and passengers, as we'll as to
all other persons. natural or artificial:
that the words in restraint of trade or
commerce do not mean in unreasonable
or partial restraint of trade or COM
merce, but any direct restraint thereof;
that an agreement between competing
railroads.. which requires them to act in
concert in fixing the rate for the car
lag of passengers or freight, over
lnSlT respective lilies 1IOIll one Sldlc
to another and which. by that means,
restricts temporarily the right of any
other of such carriers to name such
rates for the carriage of such freight or
passengers over its road, as it pleases,
is a contract in direct restraint of COM
merCe within the meani of the act,
in that II tends to prevent competition:
that it matters not whether, while act
ing and such a contract the rate fixed
is reasonable or unreasonable. the vice
of such ! contract or combination being
that it cOnfers the power to establish
unreasonable rates and directly re-
strains commerce by placing obstacles
in the way of free and unrestricted
competition between carriers who are
natural rivals for patronage; and, final
ly that congress has the power. under
the grant of authority contained in the
federal constitution. to regulate COM
merce. to say that no contract or COM
bination shall be legal which shall re-
strain Interstate trade or
by shutting off the operation of the
general law of competition"
Taking the foregoing proposition for
granite il Is almost too plain for argu-
ment that the defendant would have
violated the antitrust law if they had
done. through the agency of natural
persons. wha' hey have accomplished
through an artificial person of their own
creation. That is TO say. if the same
individuals who promoted the Securities
Company, in pursuance of a previous
understanding or agreement so to do, had
transferred their stock in the two rail-
road companies to a third party or par
ties. and had agreed to induce other
shareholders to do likewise. until a ma
joritv of the stock of both companies
had been vested in a single individual,
or association, or individuals, and had
empowered the holder or holders to vote
the stock as their own, receive all the
dividends thereon, n pro rata or d.