The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-12-09
BRIEFS FILED IN
 SECURITIES CASE Attorneys Seek to Prove Ab-
 Sence of Trust ARGUMENTS ARE LENGTHY MT. Bum Says Union Pacific and Northern Pacific Did not Come Within the Antitrust Act
 by Combining.
ARGUMENTS ARE LENGTHY

Washington, December S.-Briefs in be- half of the Northern Securities company and the Northern Pacific Railway com pany in the case of the United states against those two companies, and the Great Northern company, were filed in the supreme court today. The brief of he Securities company is by George B. Young and that of the Northern Pacific by C. w. Bum. Mr. Young's brief is q document of oyer 300 pages, and in it he traces minutely the origin of the merger 1 The movement for this consolidation he attributes largely to the raid in May 1901, by hostile interests on Northern Pacific stock. which it was considered most important to present, and says:
 "The Union Pacific interests still held about $37, 600 of the Northern Pacific common stock Between one and two mil lions were not held by either of the par ties. The loss of three millions from the majority holdings might occur from vari- ous causes and the attack just defeated might be removed with success by the same or other assaiants"
 He says that in this emergency. Messrs. Morgan and Hill saw clearly that they
 
 upon the law for protection.
 Not Contrary to Law.
 They had every reason to believe, Mr. Young continues, that such a holding as that of the Union Pacific in the Northern Pacific, was not contrary to the anti trust law, and "the inacton of the attor- ney general showed that this was also the opinion of that official charged with the enforcement of the antitrust act"
 The first idea was to form trust com- pany but Mr. Young says that it was quickly abandoned. The first thought was to incorporate under the laws of Mlnne- sota, but it was found impractcable to secure an acceptable charter in that state; consequently the papers were filed In New Jersey.
 On the question of consolidation in the Securities company, MT. Young says:
 Its ownership of the shares of the two railway companies, no more consolidates, or pools, or merges, those shares, or the two companies, or their property. than the ownership of two pieces of real es tate by the same person, consoldates them, or the title to them"
 Combination Beneficial. He asserts that the only combination of which there is any evidence. is the combination formed in aid of commerce to liberate, protect and enlarge, and not to restrain #, and which has liberated, protected aided and enlarged it. and has not restrained, and does not threaten to restrain"
 The brief of Mir. Bum is an argument to show that the action of the two rail road companies did not come wiln,n the antitrust act. He says:
 '"rhe statute must be interpreted so as to fall within the constitutional powers of congress. Construed as the circuit court read it, or as the learned attorney general asks to have it read the act seems to us far beyond the scope of those powers. It is nothing less than an overturning of the settled rules upon the subject to say that the power of con- gross extends to determining in what corporation stock may be held by citl" zens of the states. or that 1t extends to the regulation of the consolidation, and mergers of railway companies chartered by the states.'