Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-04-21
POINTS OF ERROR.
Alleged by Counsel
for Great Northern
And Other Defendants in Appeal from
Circuit Courts Decision.
Almost Nothing of Courts Opinion Al.
legged to Be Correct.

four points of error are alleged by the
counsel for the Northern Securities CO.
and other defendants in their appeal
from the decision of the circuit court.
Exceptions are noted to every para
graph in the decree and the court is
claimed to be in error in rendering any
decree save one for dismissal of the
petition and the proceedings. The text
Of the appeal follows:
| First, the court erred in finding and
deciding that in the summer of 1901,
certain large and influential stockhold-
ers of the defendant railway companies
conceived the design of placing very
large majority of the stock of both of
said companies in the hands of a single
owner. And erred in finding and decid-
ling that the stockholders thus describ-
ed had practically control of the roads
of the two defendant railway COM
panies.
| Second, the court erred in finding and
deciding that said above described
shareholders arranged and agreed with
each other that a corporation to be
formed by them under the laws of New
Jersey should buy all or at least the
| SlcdtcT part Oh the StOCh OI GdCu OIL Tie
defendant railway companies.
Third, the court erred in finding and
deciding that the above described
stockholders agreed with each other to
exchange their respective holdings of
stock in tho two defendant railway
companies for the stock of such New
Jersey company.
Fourth, the court erred in finding and
deciding that the above described
stockholders agreed with each other to
| use their influence to induce other
stockholders in their respective COM
parjes to exchange their respective
holdings OF stock in said railway COM
panies for the stock of such New Jer-
sey company and in deciding that this
was to the end that the New Jersey
Company might become the sole owner
of the whole or at least a major portion
of the stock of both of said railway
companies.
Fifth, the court erred in finding and
deciding that the Northern Securities
Company was organized under the plan
mentioned in the foregoing assign
ments and in finding and deciding that
the capital stock of $500, 100000 with
which the Northern Securities Co. was
organized was the exact amount re-
quired to purchase the total stock of
the two defendant railway companies
at the price agreed to be paid therfor
Sixth, the court erred in finding and
deciding that when the Northern Sc
curities Co. was organized it assentcd
TO become a part of the above mention
ed scheme SO found by the court as
aforesaid to have been devised by it's
promoters.
Seventh, the court erred in finding
ana deciding that the Northern Securi-
ties Co. was enabled to make purchases
of stock of the Great Northern Railway
Co. from holders thereof not imme-
diately concerned in the organization of
the Northern Securities Co. by the ad-
vice, procurement and persuasion of
these stockholders of said company.
who had been instrumental in organic
ing the Northern Securities Co.
Eighth, the court erred in finding and
deciding that the scheme, as aforesaid,
enormously found by it to have been
devised and contaminated, placed the
control of the railways of said two rail-
way companies in the hands of the
Northern Securities Company and de-
stroyed every motive for competition
between said two railway companies
by pooling their earnings was ever con-
templated or has ever been made.
Ninth, the court erred in holding and
deciding that oil contracts and combi-
nations which merely tend to restrain
interstate commerce, whether by sup
preston of competition or otherwise
are in themselves, and although such
tendency does not result in any such
restraint. violations Of the act of Con-
gress of July 2, 1890, known as the anti
trust act
Tenth, the court erred in holding and
deciding that all contracts and COM
binations which merely confer the
power to restrain interstate commerce
whether by suppression of competition
or otherwise, are evasive contracts or
combinations in restraint of such COM
merce, and declared Illegal by the anti.
trust act, although such power is not.
and is not intended to be exercised.
Eleventh, the court erred in holding
and deciding that every combination
whereby the power is acquired to sup
press competition between two parallel
and competing lines of railway operat-
ing under state charters, and engaged
in interstate commerce, is combin-
alton in violation of said antitrust
act, whether such power is exercised
or intended to be exercised or not.
Twelfth, the court erred in holding
and deciding that it would have been
a violation of said antitrust act had
the individual defendants, in pursuance
of a previous agreement 80 to do, sold
their shares of stock in the defendant
railway companies to a natural person,
and had induced their fellow share
holders to do the same with the re-
suIting acquisition by such individual,
of a majority of the stock of each rail-
way company.
Thirteenth, the court erred in holding
and deciding that the interstate COM
merce of each defendant railway COM
pany is controlled by it's shareholders
and not by its board of directors.
Fourteenth. the court erred in hold
ing and deciding that the Northern se-s
curities Co. controls the commerce of
Continued on page 81