Custer weekly chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, S.D.) 1890-1931, 1903-04-18

0As EdbIg WllItH'J TP'' rs
ed States circuit court of appeals has
handed down a decision IN the SUIT OF
the United States against the North
ern Securities company, enJoInin9 the
mPa from votirg the stock OF rhe
Northern Pacific or Great Northern
Railroad companies, but allowing the
return Of ouch stock as had been de-
livered to that holding company. The
opinion is unanimous.
SUBSTANCE OF ORDER.
The substance Of the order follows:
A decree in favor of the United
States will accordingly be entered to
the following effect:
Adjudsing that the stock or the
Northern Pacific and Great Northern
companies now held by the Securities
company was acquired in virtue CT a
combination among the defendants IN
restraint of trade and among
the several states, such as the anti
trust act denounces as illegal.
Enioinine the Securities company
from acquiring or attempting to ac-
quirc further stock of either Of said
companies.
CANNOT VOTE STocKc.
Enjoining it from voting such stocks
at any meeting of stockholders Of said
railroad companies, or exercising or
attempting to exercise any control, dI-
r~ection, supervision or influence over
tho acts of said company. -,
Enjoiring the Northern Pacific n
Great Northern companies, respective
ly, from permitting such stock to be
voted by the Securities company, and
Likewise enjoining them from paying
any dividends to the Securities COM
pany on account of said stock, or per-
hitting or suffering the Securities
company to exercise any control what
soever over the corporate acts of said
companies.
MAY RETURN SHARES.
Finally, permitting the Securities
COMPANY to return and transfer to the
stockholders of the Northern Pacific
and Great Northern any and all shares
Of stock of those companies which 1t
may have received from such stock
holders in exchange for ito own stock;
or to mako such transfer and assign
ment to such persons as are now hold
ers and owners of it's own stock origin
ally issued in exchange for stock of
said company.
THE COURTS DISCUSSION.
Tho opinion declares that under the
admissions of defendants, the Securi-
ties company acquired control of the
Burlington, Northern Pacific and Great
Northern interests, parallel and COM
pGIlnH llIlCoy aIlS w N''aN N'S SSNSi''S
thus consummated led inevitably to
the following result:
Control of two interests in the hands
of a single person.
DESTROYED every motive for competi-
ton between those two roads engaged
in interstate traffic, which are natural
competitors for business, by pooling
tho earnings of the two roads for the
common benefit of stockholders Of both
companies.
And, according to the familiar rule
that everyone is presumed to intend
what is the necessary consequence of
his own act, we must conclude hat
thoso who conceived and executed tho
plan aforesaid intended among other
things to accomplish these objects.
MEANING OF TRUST"
The court discusses the meaning of
the word trust" in the antitrust act
and says congress was careful to de-
clare that a combination, if in restraint
of interstate trade or commerce., if it
directly occasioned or affected such re-
s~traint, should be deemed illegal. The
words Gin restraint of commerce" do
not mean in unreasonable or partial
restraint of tradcj but any direct re-
straint thereof.
The court further says that any
agreement between competing roads
requiring them to act in concert in fix
ing rates for carriage of passengers or
freight over their respective lines from
one state to another is in direct re-
straint of within tho mean
ing of the antitrust act.
POWER OF CONGRESS.
Congress has tho power, the decision
says, under the constitution, to regu-
late and to say that no con-
ira ct or combination shall be legal
which restraints interstate By
shutting off the operations Of the gen.
ersl law of competition.
The organization of the Securities
company is held to accomplish an act
which congress has denounced as iile-
gal, more effectuaIly than by other
methods.
Concerning the New Jersey charter,
the court says the question to be de-
termined is whether a cha rter granted
by a state can be used to defeat the
national legislature as expressed in a
law relating to interstat2 trade, over
which congress has absolute control.
After quoting New Jersey law, the
court says the law means that no pow
ers granted by a state shall be cxer-
cisod to set at defiance any United
States statutes. The contention that
the existing combination is in violation
of the ant trust act, and that that act
updLly restricts the right cf the in
dividual to make a contract, and is in
valid, is declared to be entitled TO lit
Gle consideration.