The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-08-02
|LOCHREN DECIDES FOR
 THE RAILROAD MERGER
situated on both lines of railway has ex. isted in the past year.
 The ti.Truaf T,au

situated on both lines of railway has ex- isted in the past year.
 The Antitrust Law.
 After reciting the act passed by the legislature of 1874 forbidding the consoli-
 dating of parallel railroads, also the act
 of 1881 permitting one railroad company to consolidate its stock and franchise with the stock of any other roads which might be connected and operated together.
 they constitute continuous main line
 with or without branches; and calling at-
 tention to the fact that the same statute reiterated the prohibition against con solidating parallel and competing lines, Judge Lochren calls attention to the pas sage of the antitrust law passed by the State legislature in 1899 forbidding com binations in restraint of trade or com
 merce between the State of Minnesota and other States and its penalties and then gives a complete history of the
 merger proceedings Under conclusions
 of law the court says after reviewing a number of Supreme Court decisions on the
 Sherman antitrust act the proper con- | struction of the Sherman antitrust act so
 far as it relates to railroad transporta- | tion as deduced from these decisions of | the Supreme Court appears to be this: '"The act applies to railroads. and all contracts made between railroad compa- nies for the purpose of having the effect of preventing competition by fixing rates or empowering persons to fix them, and agreeing to conform to them when fixed
 are in restraint of trade and within the
 provisions of the statute. whether the | rates So fixed are reasonable or unreason- | able. That contracts between the manu- facturers of commodity respecting their sales of that commodity to be delivered
 by them outside the State, having the
 direct effect of stfing competition and raising the cost of the article to the pur- chaser is also in restraint of trade and within the statute. The contracts that
 do not directly affect transportation or
 rates therefore are not in restraint of trade or within the statute even though
 they may remotely and indirectly appear
 to have some probable effect in that direc- | tion. IE The State and antitrust act must have the same construction in respect to
 traf1ic on railroads within the State. The Decision Epitomozed.
 To epitomize this decision:
 Tt Is held that it will be for the inter est Of the Northern Securities Company
 10 restrain trade for suppressing compe- tition between these two railroad com
 panies; and that by coercing or persuad-
 ing the two boards of directors whom 1t mas ehe power 10 elect 1t will certainly cause them to commit highly penal of
 lenses by entering into combinations, con-
 tracts and arrahgements. In restraint of trade, in violation of the antitrust act
 and hence the Northern Securities Com
 pany is already guilty of these offenses
 that have never been committed or
 thought of by its officers or promoters so
 Tar as appears and 1t must be suppressed
 and destroyed.
 T am compelled to reject the doctrine
 mat any person can be held to have com-
 mitted, or to be purposing and about to commit. highly penal ohfense. merely
 because 1t can be shown that his pecun- iary interests will be thereby protected and that he has the power either direct ly by himself or indirectly by persuasion or coercion of his agents to compass the commission Of the offense. Decree will
 be entered dismissing the case.