Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1903-04-23
MERGERF|LES APPEAL
TAKES EXCEPTION TO DECISION
OF FEDERAL COURT.
COMBINATION Is DENIED
Alleged That Court Erred in Deciding
That Plan of Northern Securities
Company Was to Control the Rail-
ways Concerned - Claims That
Court Cannot Enjoin Company.

St. Paul, April 1.-Thirty-four
points are alleged by the counsel for
the Northern Securities company, in
its appeal from the recent decision.
Exceptions are noted to every para
graph in the decree and court is
claimed to be in error in rendering
the decree, save one for dismissal of
the petition and proceedings.
The appeal alleges among other
/ things that the court erred in finding
that the stockholders of the defendant
companies had practical control of de-
PENDANT companies and that the stock
holders agreed to form a corporation
to buy the stock of the defendants. 1t
also claims the court erred in finding
that the stockholders agreed to ex-
change their holdings in the defendant
companies for stock in the corporation.
1t says the court erred when it found
the plan of the new corporation in the
control of the defendant railcays in the
hands of the Northern Securities COM
pany and destroyed competition be-
tween said companies and that pool
ing of the earnings was contemplated.
1t is alleged that the court erred in
finding that combinations which mere
ly tend to restrain the interstate COM
merce are violations of the antitrust
act; that the court erred in holding ev-
cry combination having the power to
suppress a complication between
parallel lines is in violation of the
antitrust act whether such power was
exercised or not Error was made,
it is alleged, in holding that congress
has the power to prescribe who may
or who shall be shareholders of the
companies chartered under state laws,
but doing Interstate commerce bus
mess and the court erred in holding
that the state has not the exclusive
power to forbid the combination Of
two such railways.
1t is claimed that it was erroneous
to hold two competing roads could not
place a majority Of the stock in the
hands Of a single person or a few per-
sons with the power to operate said
roads and stifle competition, and YET
the same persons might create a cor
pOratiOn to accomplish the same pur-
pose.
Error was also made, the appeal al
leges, in deciding that the existing
combination gives a few men control
of all the means of transportation OF
the defendant railway companies.
The defendants allege it was an
error to hold the antitrust act if con-
strued as forbidding the shareholders
of the defendant companies
from selling their shares
to the Securities company is
q valid law and not in conflict with
| the federal constitution. 1t is claimed
the court erred in holding that the
proofs disclosed any combination i'll
the restraint commerce than one to
build up and enlarge the interstate
and foreign commerce without any re-
! Straining of either.
! Error was made, it is alleged, in de
| Gliding that the Securities company be
enjOined from acquiring the stock of
either defendants and voting such
stock or exercising any contract of
J the acts of either railway company
also that the court erred in enjoining
the defendants from paying the Secur-
tiles company any "dividend on the
stock Of such railway company which
! it now claims to own and hold" and
in deciding the Securities company
cannot legally hold shares in even one
of the defendant companies or exer-
else any rights of such ownership.
| Finally, the appeal declares the
court erred in rendering any decree
save a decree for the dismissal of the
| proceedings.