The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-03-20
TWO VOICES FOR
THE NORTHERN
SECURITIES
Judge Young Concludes His
Argument at st. Louis and
Mr.. Grover Delivers His
Position of the Government
Combatted at Every Point.

Combatted at Every Point.
ST. LOUIS, Mo-, March 19.-Almost
the entire days session of the United
States circuit court Of the district of
Minnesota. before which the case of
the United States government against
the Northern Securities company is
being tried, was occupied by former
Judge Young, of st. Paul, in defense
of the merger interests. Judge Young
was followed by NJ. D. Grover, of st.
Paul. also counsel for the defense
Judge Young pointed out that it was
essential to the transcontinentaf roads
that they should have some opening to
the manufacturing districts and the
coal fields of the Middle West This
purchase would lead to greater trade
and the settling of the vast unoccupied
lands of the Dakotas and Montana, He
then showed how the purchase was
completed long before the idea of a
common holding of stock of the North
ern Pacific and Great Northern by a.
single company; that at the time, as
was shown by the testimony of Messrs.
Morgan, Hill and associates, the Nur-
chase of the Northern Pacific was such
a colossal undertaking that st did not
appear possible. However, the raid
on the Union Pacific interests to gain
possession of the Northern Pacific
stock on May 9, 1900, showed that some
action was necessary to- prevent it's
recurrence.
Reck's Statement Refuted.
Judge Young said that the purchase
of stock of the Great Northern was
neither suggested nor contemplated,
and that this conclusively -refutes the
statement of Assistant -Attorney Gen
eral Beck that at that time. there was an
agreement to create q common owner
ship of the Great Northern and North
ern Pacific and thus violate the Sher-
man antitrust act sHe went on to
show that the formation OF the Securi-
ties company had not restrained or
monopolized commerce, as each rail-
way is managed, as required by law,
by wholly different board of directors
from that of the other.
He showed that only 27S of the traf-
f1c on the Great Northern and only 2.S9
of the traffic on the Northern Pacific
could In any degree be called COMPETE
tive; that by the Burlington purchase
the total traffic on the road would, be,
immensely increased and that the con-
tnuance' Of this increase could be in
sured only by a harmonious action. of
both roads in regard to the ownership
OF the Burlington, and this could be
best secured by the common ownership
of the stock.
Sherman Act Doesn't Apply.
Judge, Young pointed out that the
United States supreme court decisions
have held, without variation, that con-
gress could regulate only that which
directly affected@interstate commerce.
while the declaration as to who, should
hold stock of corporations engaged in
interstate business was clearly an in
direct regulation and within the juris-
d1ct1on of congress-, and hence the
sherman antitrust act would not ap-
ply. He argued in support of this
contention that the jurisdiction of con-
gress was exclusive in those matters
admitting of uniform rule; that by
the passing of the ANTITRUST act 1t
was shown this was a matter admitting
OF a uniform rule. But if this is true
the states have no right to authorize
or prohibit the consolidation of rail-
road lines. The right of states to al
low consolation has always been
permitted without question, and con-
solidatons may be prohibited by the
state
To further show that the antitrust
act was not intended to apply to the
purchase Of railroad stock by a COM
peutor, Judge Young gave the history
of all the larger Eastern railroad sys-
TENS, showing1hat they were all COM
posed of competitive parallel lines, yet
their capital stock was now controlled
by one of their constituent companies
which originally. competed with the
others.
Judge Young contended that the gov
eminent was not entitled to maintain
this proceeding, under senfions 1 and
of the Sherman sanazfrust act;
neither had the court JURISDICTION of 1t
under these sections. for the conspir-
acy or combination relied on by the
government. if it ever existed, had
done all it was formed to do and had
come 10 an end before the. proceeding
was instituted. $3.50
Combination to Aid Commerce.
The only combination OF which there
was any evidence was the combirla-
ton formed to aid commerce and not
to restrain it and which has aided and
not restrained 1t, and the evidence
interstate or foreign commerce The
very general language of the anti trust
act was not intended to include COM
plnatlons TO purchase railways or rail-
way shares, competing or .non-compet-
ing, nor consultations, actual or "vir-
tual.' of railways. The various trans
actions We're made openly, one after
anotner, during the years that have
followed the enactment of the anti
trust law They Were known to every
department of the government, and
their laWfuiness was universally acqui-
esced in.
The duty of restraining all violations
OF the antitrust act is laid by the act
IN express terms upon the attorney
general, but not one suit has been in
stituted in any of these cases. There
can have been but one reason for this.
and that is that the present incumbent
or that office and his predecessors abb
stained because, In their judgment,
such combinations were not in direct
restraint OF interstate commerce, and
the act had no application. In con-
cluslon, he said, that 1T is not to be
imagined that even now the attorney
general, If he considered such COM
binations to be infractions Of the law,
would shut his eyes to those doing
business at the very capitahof the ma
ton, and should come half way across
the continent in search Ola violation
of the act.
Mr.. Growers Argument.
The remaining hour. of the session