The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-03-18

hibited such a combination. He review
ed all of the decisions of the federal ap-
pellate court which had construed this
act. and summarized the doctrine of
these cases in the following propositions:
L Public policy requires free compe-
titlon between competing transportation
INES and forbldS all attempts to restrict
such competition or create d monopoly.
2. The police power extends to COR
poratiOns which are engaged in pub
lie service, and which are therefore sub
Ject to legislative control, so far as be-
comes necessary for the protection of
the public interests, and it is competent
for the legislature of a state, with re-
spect to domestic trade. and congress,
with respect TO interstate trade, to pro-
hibit either corporations or individuals
from combining. either directly or indi-
rectly, so as to eliminate competition
g The purchase of stock by a rail-
road corporation in a competing line IS
contrary to public policy and void, and
this even though accomplished by indi-
vidual stockholders acting in behalf and
for the interests Of the purchasing COM
pany.
suit of a given combination is to elimin-
ate competition and thereby restrain
trade, the intent to accomplish that re-
suit will be presumed and need not be
formally proved.
IS 1t is not important that the pro-
posed combination does not secure a
complete monopoly of a given subject of
commerce; a partial monopoly is equally
offensive to public policy.
IS. The fact that the power of the
combination has not been exercised to
increase prices or rates is not important.
The law is concerned not with what is
done but with the power to do.
II. The law will look to the substance
and not to the form. and will not per-
NIT q monopOlistic combination. no mat
ter by what corporate or legal devices it
may be attempted.
IS Corpora tons as personalities only
exist in a fiction of the law and for
practical and beneficial purposes which
subserve public interests. Where such
fiction IS invoked to violate criminal
statutes or to defeat sound public pol
icy, such fiction will be disregarded and
the law VIII look 10 the acts of the IN
dividuals who control the corpora ton as
the acts of the corporation Itself.
g. Therefore the mere fact that
such a consolidation takes the form OF
q purchase by the stockholders of one
company, individually, Of a portion OF
the capital stock of a competing line
will not legalize the transaction, and
this Notwithstanding the fact that the
capital stock so purchased is less than
a majority provided it be purchased
with a view to the control Of the COM
peting line.
10. The liberty guaranteed by the
fifth amendment to purchase and sell
power of the state, and does not sane
ton the purchases and sales of capital
stock with a view to a practical con-
solidation of parallel and competing
| lines.
Courts are too practical to ignore the
known and natural results of human
action. In dealing with this question
they regard as a maxim the proposition
that to remove the motive for COMPETE
ton is to destroy competition itself Il
IS obvious that the officers of the Great
Northern, chosen by the Northern Sc
( curities. can have no motive to COM
/ pete with the officers of the Northern
Pacific in the operation Of their respec-
tive systems, for the prosperity of the
Great Northern is the prosperity of the
! Northen Pacific and vice versa. They
have a common owner and a common
master, and it is of no practical conse-
4 quence whether the people use one OF
/ the other IS a carrier. as the entire pro-
+ ceeds of their joint traffic necessarily
go into the common treasury of the
4 Northern Securities company To sug-
/ gest that competition is possible Where
competition is useless is an absurdity.'
To the claim that each stakeholder. has
the right to dispose of his property al
pleasure, Mr.. Beck answered that nc