New-York tribune., 1903-04-21

with each other that corporation TO be formed
of each of the defendant railway companies.
THIRD
other to exchange their respective holdings OF
the stock OF such New-Jersey company.
FOURTH.
The court erred in finding and deciding that the the
above described bed rs e aE5eed oT STh tock
holders in their respective companies to excnange
Companies for the stock Of such New-Jersey com
pany. and in deciding that this was to the enc enc
sole OneF Of d The woe II S Or at at t s5 rs%aS aSF
panies.
The court erred In finding and deciding that the
the bia1 entIoned in the foregoing ASSIGNMENTS
@ ad @ % m m Win f1d 3hch the e Northern Securities
Company was organized was ihe exact amount n1
defendant railway companies at the price agreed
to be paid therefor.
The court erred in finding and deciding that when
the Northern Securities Company was organlZea y
assented to become party to 5ae oead to have
been devised by its promoters.
SEVENTH
The court erred in finding and deciding that the the
Northern Securities Company was enanIeo 20 ti TIA
COMPANY from holders thereof mo not Io2fRs4n Ipeqatss s
pfr shE 5g he aGce and
persuasion of those stockholders of said company
Northern Securities Company
EIGHTH.
The court erred In finding and deciding that the
scheme, aforesaid erroneousiy ioqhu ,ed DS tbe
control Of the railways Of said two TallWay cotpa @
eS IN ana r6e efoyed cd eTery motive for competition
between said two railway conpanes Dx t pTks psfnck
their earnings for the common beneht OF tne ESQ n
holders of both railway companies; and erred n
finding and deciding that any suGh OF s s ever beeT
of earnings was ever contemplated OF mas ever 0
made.
The court erred in holding and deciding tnat an al
contracts and combinations which mercy teI!u @ -
restrain interstate commerce wnetner ~ SSsaves
sion Of competition or otherwise are IN 7'It n
although such te4dsncy does ac not Of Congress
Of Juiv 3. 1870. known as the Antitrust act
TENTH
The court erred in holding and deciding thar an az
contracts and combinations whIcn ] lerS Swbether by
suppr ssion OF competition or otherW2se are L 80,
Goracs sS or decTa2ed illegal by the Antitrust act
though such power is not, and is not lntenoeo 10
De- eAei'Se0 ELEVENTH.
The court IN holding and deciding eoipe6 {ne
every ThgTes Between wee two parallel and
competing lines Of railway operating 4@Iuea nue. iS a
charters ian ana G engagga On Of said ANTITRUST
whether such power is exercised or intended 10 Dc
eAei' - TWELFTH
The court erred in holding and deciding that it
HGf had the ndividuai defendants, in pursuance Of
previous agreement SO to Is% a4 s0d oompanes 70
natural person and mad indbceG & tne E,Itg adjust
lion bv such individual Of majority of the stock
/ Of each railway company
| THIRTEENTH.
The court erred in holding and deciding that the
/ g-+er commerce of each defendant IAN"
! nompsnv is controlled by its shareholders and not
| by its board Of directors.
FOURTEENTH
The court erred in holding and deciding @ that The the
n1erce Of both Of the defendant railway companies @
agement Of its business is vested in its board od
! directors and the companies have ana must nave
( separate and distinct boards Of directors
FIFTEENTH
The court erred in holding that the ownership Of
a majority Of the shares OF each OF two competing
shares control over each Of such companies and
its cOmmerce which the holder OF ma79rE @ Ied 20 IN
Pglla23,s Palace Car G4mRa9y E SIS no TO Dossess
! over such single railway company or It's commerce
SIXTEENTH
/ The court erred in holding and deciding that the
constitution a9d composition 4d n SAFE AVS
/ but carrying interstate commerce, are mem n
/ such. subject to regulation by Congress. Ano IN
/ holding and deciding that under the commerce CONNIE &c
prescribe who may who shall not be sharehold-
eTs oeE6oder m sHSo or eo5natcn Of sockhoeTs
own in any such 10 @ or
! any of them. And erred in holding and decldlng
that the acquisition and holding Of such stock IN
railway companfes and all matters Of their internal
/ constitution and composition not matters over
which the State Incorporating sucn company 4i 15s
/ exclusive power of regulation And erred IN hold-
ing that the authorizing forhoid ling or the con
solidation Of any two such railway companies Is
/ not within the exclusive power OF the Stale or
States by or under whose laws they have been IN
e0i SEVENTEENTH.
The court erred in holding that consultations Of
| railway companies created by or under state laws
! and competitors in interstate commerce are .ef-
! such consultations though expressly authorized
by State charter. are violations OF SAID ANTITRUST
a'' EIGHTEENTH.
The court erred in holding and deciding that any
Of the defendants have attempted TO tnterpose
the NewJersey charter OF the Nortnern SecuTltles @
law and that such charter is about the only shield
! that be SO interposed
NINETEENTH.
The court erred in finding and deciding that the
reascning which red TO the + biIs o % as fn
/ he promoters could not. by agreement
Of The two. competing parallel railroads in the
hands of single person or or reW persons. CIV
ing him or them the power to operate tne Fo96s s
persons might create purely hctlElous nea
SON termed corporatlon winch 1fd coeo me- neI'HT by
placing the same stock IN the name Of such artih-
| ciaI being. accomplish the same purpose
TWENTIETH
The court erred in holding and deciding that the
! held bv the Northern Securities Company have
merely been paGed bS fs IN is Il R nof 3ge abou
, Of the same in its own sole right
TwENTY-FIRST.
! The court erred in holding and deciding that so
far the New-Jersey charter Is concernef9; me ne
whether charter granted by stare s1. can De. De