The sun., 1903-04-18


Nnov 'Aao,oe ~, .ns. ..,..a,r,. 49, a nro,.o,
-, ,.,"s.',. ~ ~r,on an s.s n,.o eomml,sed 20 she.r
es,,,.. Ar 1, nav he tina, the combination was the
Initial and a necessary step in the accom- prshmsn'
of rres, designs which, II earned ou. IS they were
conceived. would prove to be of inestlmab'' value
70 the communities which these ROADS serve anu "
the country Al large
We shall neither amrm nor oens .,.n'' an ~ - :.
propoauon' because 'ney pl.sen' ~ '. s.m. =, ,h,m
ls nov e.n'a upon 70 49,, ..,S,r N, province
=, .rv ,aur, - d.c,ds ,nvo,vnr a. they do. aues.
don, Of nusuc policy which congress mus, deter.
mine.
1T Is our duty to ascertain whether the proof
dsc,oses combination In direct restraint Of inter
state commerce. that Is to say oomolauon
whereby the power has been acquired 70 .upp. -
composition between '"o OF NOR ,'.a.,.,. ooa, .om.
pa'an'' ""'' VI ''"' '"''
,,, ..,, ,ou,,,,. .,,ou and ws have
NTH. h,a,,,,on IN .n,v,r,nr ,b,, question in the
.nrm.uv., then the Anu .rus. set. . II has been
heretofore Interpreted By the coun Of iass resort
has been violated and the Government 10 sae''sd
70 decree
Tha oist Of the reason why the court
could not assent to the third proposition
Of the defendants was that by the COM
binat;on entered into between the de-
fendsnts the Northern Securities Com
nanv had acquired the porer to suppress
oompetition.
m thereforc. the defendants had ON
the trial offered IN prove that neither
of than ;ntanded To restrain traffic over
IN. oonso,idated roads. and that the
efYect Of the merger had not been to
diminish the trsffio. hut had on the con.
trarv greatly inoreased II. the court
would have ruled out the testimony as
irrelevant and inoonseouential, upon
the ground that the contract in proof
vas evidenoa conolusive of restraint OF
trade and ~ intention To Restrain IL.
n was certainly not unreasonable for
the defendant. 70 be advised by COM
netent counsel. and to believe that, not
withstandino the ruling OF the Supreme
Court in {. The Joint Traffic Association :
cas-. a trial oourt would admit evidence
tandino IN shov the intention Of the de-
tandants and of the nraotioal res,,lts of
IN. mercer in order 10 prove the inno-
cence of the defendants.
little nrogress can be made by dwell
inc now on the sincerity of the efforts OF
either nolitical nartv 10 revive and on.
forca railway comnN&ition bv cutting
ratss after that form OF competition had
beO,n IN deoay. and vet Il seems that,
within a dozen vears after the law Of
800 only two. or At the most three, suits
were beeun bv the Government at WASH
,noton 70 enforce railway oompetition:
that thew were beO,,n under Mr. CLEyE-
IINn,s Administration. that In each
the Judges of the lower courts, held in
the localities affected. we,e opposed to
the Governments theory. and not till
the cases arrived in WASHING ton was it
ad,,doed nv a divided court that the
RIGHT Of individuals. under the Consti itu.
ton N make nrivats contracts u sub
ordin.ted 70 the right OF Congress 70
enforce the plav Of oompetition b.
tween inter.tate RAILWAYS. and to destroy
the business Of naturally rival railways
whenever the trade In not competitive.
Attornev-General KNOX in his Pitts
burg speech Of Oct II. 1902. delivered
after he had answered the Preside nt's
inquiry respectinR q prosecution Of the
Northern Securities merger. criticised
m. decision Of the Supreme Court of