The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-12-16

ton as it is put by appellants: Can Con-
gress regulate the ownership Of interstate
railroads under its power to regu-
and has it lone so by this act of
1902. Most certainly. yes. Congress can
sense that it can prohibit and prevent its
use in a way that will defeat a law that
Congress may constitutionally enact. For
this purpose, the supreme, power operates
upon everything, upon every 0ne.
POSSIBILITIES ENORMOUS.
In concluding the attorney general said:
THE possibilities of a notwithstanding
company of this kind as a financial ma
chine for manipulating railroads and other
properties and concentrating their control
i'm the hands of a powerful clique are SIM
ply 1t has again and again been
pointed out since the ORGANIZATION OF the
Northern Securities Company that In Its
simplest form it is possible for a group OF
men, by Incorporating themselves as a Sc
curities-holding company, TO control w
the amount of stock that would be required
i'm the hands of individuals. individuals
will be required to hold 81 per cent. of the
stock of both railroads in order to control
them, but if a particular group of men had
the control of a notwithstanding company
that held 81 per cent. OF the stock OF both
roads they would control both roads upon
a holding of 81 per cent. of the shares OF
the holding company, or practically one
fourth of the combined capltai o. me Two
of vulgar fractions because 1t works out
that a half of a half is equal to a half of a
whole. OF course, 1T is a simple PROPOSE
ton to bring any number of railroads I'M
der the same control without increasing
the stock of the securities holding COM
pany or without increasing the stock of
The holders of the control of the securities
holding company, by employing the device
-esorted to by the defendants in the pur-
chase of the Burlington road, namely. by
having one of the railroads controlled by
the securities company acquire the stock
and pay for ii with its own obligations Sc
cured by a pledge Of the stock acquired
which were brought into temporary har-
mony under the Transmissouri arrange
ment could easily be brought into per-
manent harmony without physical CONSOLE
dation under the arrangement / nave de-
scribed.
Il cannot think that a combination held
together by a roDe of sand comes within
the prohibition of the law and that one
which is bound by links Of steel may defy
it's wisdom and its power. To prevent such
a dangerous concentration of power, dam
freedom, the people have done all that it is
possible for them to do under our system
against 1t. If this law can be construed so
as not to cover the situation, or If the
court says yea to the proposition affirmed
in the last paragraph of Mr.. Morgan's an
swer, namely, Congress has no power to
prevent such combinations, then, indeed.
the governments grave concern as to this
litigation may be easily understood"
MIR. YOUNG'S ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Knox was followed by George B.
Young, ON behalf of the Securities Com
pany, who declared that his clients do not
seek in any way to limit the authority of
Congress over interstate commerce. He
said the Securities Company was not seek
ing in any way to evade the law. But 1t was
not, he said, necessary to stretch a law
covering interstate m to make it
| cover something that is not interstate COM
merce. 1--WE are not dealing here with COM
merce or the operations of railroads at all"
he said, but we are dealing with the ques-
ton of property"
He referred to previous cases in the Su-
preme Court under the antitrust law, and
said that Congress had not defined the re-
straint of trade, and that ii had been neces-
sary for the court to make its own defini-
tions. In the joint traffic case the roads
dealt with were competing in character,
but suppose they had not been competitors
and they had agreed TO reduce rates? That
would be a contract in the restraint of
trade, for the gist of a contract is found in
the obligation that 1T lays upon the parties
to ii.
Mr.. Young went over much of the ground
covered in previous gumen in the case,
and closed with a discussion of the charge
that parties to this combination had been
guilty of conspiracy. He said: There are
1880 shareholders of the Great Northern
road, holding S125, 100000 of its stock, be-
sides these ten or eleven gentlemen charged
with conspiracy, who own ST. 900, 900 of that
stock. OF the other 100 persons owning
the other SOS, OO0, 600 of stock. GOO owning
i $780, OO, 600 of the stock have come into the
Northern Securities, and there are outstand-
ing 600 other shareholders owning $50, 600,
900 Of the stock of that company. Taking
the Northern Pacific stock together, these
so-called conspirators own not over one
third of the outstanding stock of the North
ern Securities. The rest of that stock is
owned by 1900 other persons, who never
came into the conspiracy"
Mr.. Young concluded at 3:15 p. m, and
as his was the last argument of the series
the court passed TO consideration of other
business.