The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-12-15

IS B. BEGUN.
Supreme Court Begins Conside-
ration Of Northern Securi-
ties Company Cpse.
INTERESTING ARGUMENTS.
INTERESTING ARGUMENTS
Attorney General Did Not Con-
Glide Presentation Of Govern
tnent View Of tie Contest.
tBY Associated Press.)

tBy Associated Press.)
WASHINGTON. D. c., Dec. 14.-The
Supreme Court Of the United States to-
day began hearing arguments In the case
OF tho Northern Securities Company, tho
great Northern Railroad Company, tho
Northern Pacific Company. James ]. Hill,
~ Plerpont Morgan. Daniel s. Lamont,
ana others VS.. the United States, coming
to this court on appeal from the decision
Of the Circuit Court for the District Of
Minnesota That decision was to the Of
feet that tho purchase OF tho greater 1
share oflthe stock of tho two railroad
companies constituted q merger md was (,
con trary to their Sherman anti-trust law
The case involves the community of In
terest principle. gf33 lbs
SIS There has been much interest In the
case, and when 1t was called to-day the
outside the bar. Attorney General Knox
was presentawith an array Of assis ants, !
while the opposition was presented by
long list Of Distinguished counsel. includ-
ing Former Attorney General Griggs.I
John G. johnson, OF Philadelphia; c. Wa
Bum and Charles 3. Young. Justice
Brown was tho only member Of the court
Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs Knox. III
john g. Johnson, representing the
Nortliarn Securities Company, took sharp
exception to the decision OF the Circuit
Court that the possession Of the power
which the Securities Company was a
violation Of the law and contended that
such holding was not in accordance with
decision of the Supreme Court, which were
uniformly to the effect that 1t Is the
abuse Of power and not tho possession Of
1t that constitutes the offense.
BRIEF OUTLINE.
Mr.. johnson said that what he had to
say would be stated In six propositions,
which he outlined briefly as follows:
The first Is that there was no agree
ment, contract, combination or conspir-
}acy to restrain competition between these
two railways companies. or to restrain
trade i#
n The second proposition IS that II two
railway companies. somewhat IN & COM
petition with themselves, find 1t neces-
ton against q third company, which 9TH Q n
erwise could destroy them or greatly IN
terfere with their usefulness to the pubs
lc to combine In anyway for the pur-
pose Of protecting themselves against De-
struction; that the court must look to
the matter as one Of fact, to determine
whe Their the real purpose was to destroy
q smaller competition In order to pro-
| moto trade by the establishment Of the
greater competition. /. &, rs
II The third proposition Is that If tho
holding Of the Northern Securities Cons
| pany Of the majority shares of the two
companies was violation OF the Sher-
| man act Of course All agreement amongst
any number of persons, would DO q Vlola-
ton OF that act.
The fourth proposition is that the first
section OF the Sherman act does not in
any way condemn as illegal tile acauisl-
ton or ownership Of the shares OF the
two competing companies.
The fifth proposition Is that the second
section Of the Sherman act does not In
any way condemn tho acquisition and
holding Of such ownership Of shares.
is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Tho sixth proposition is that II tho
Sherman act does condemn as illegal tho
ownership Of a controlling interest IN
tho shares OF the competing railway com
panies, that 1t Is unconstitutional. ~
r. Johnson commended that there had
been no thought OF restraining competl-
ton in uniting the ownership OF the two
railroad companies, but repeated that on
the contrary the purpose had been to en-
large and promote trade.
Mr.. Johnson urged that the owners OF
tho shares of stock have tho property
right to transfer their shares and that
1t would be an absurdity to speak Of
such q transfer between individuals AZ
a crime, 5{& u
IIo commended that corporations should
have tho same right as individuals. 10
contend otherwise. he declared, would
lead to4untold mischiofs'
Justice White interrupted Mr.. john
son to observe that as he understood thu
point it would be unlawful for a CORPORA
ton to do what an individual might do.
Gin which case, continued Justice
White, you leave tho power to compete
only In the hands OF "a very wealthy In.
div.dual. Is not the answer to this, that
the facility with which corporations can
be formed renders much more feasible tho
existence Of the competition that would
exist In case only very rich man could
exercise that power?
SOMETHING NEW.
Mr.. Johnson admitted IN reply that
reverted to tho decision Of the Circuit
Court against the. Securities Companies
because It has the, power 70 RESTRAIN
trade. Mr.. Johnson declared that TINS ue-
oisIon was something new In jurispru-
"Few Of us have a desire to. commit
murder" he said, ''but many OF US usa
a raxor'. which gives US the power 70
n ' rs PREVENT COMPETITORS;
The atoney e nf ihe ssc,I MS
ties company, sa;ld: ~
is an lnstrumentality created 10 control
the Northern Pacific and Great Northern
railroads, and through their nwnelshl,p}, ot
the Burlington to control that road NE
At this point Justiee, White r eraLatled
ir the beginning OF his argument to tho
act Of Congress- organizing the North,
orn Pacific Dad and asked him 4 tie
case rests upon that net: Mr., Knox 70
pied that 1t did not md EDGED that DO
merely referred to that les, 81 ton H. rep.y
Ia the restrictions that the government
had Undertaken to Interfere In case in
winch 1t had no interest. The attorney
n la hafnra ad lQurnmeut 10 L