The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1903-04-10
CAN'T Be COMBINED
rorRT FORBIDS THE GREAT
RAILWAY MERGER.
GOVERNMENT is SUSTAINED
IN ITS CONTENTION THAT MERGER
WOULD BE UNLAWFUL.

Northern Securities Company Cam
not own and Control Both the
Creat Northern and the Northern
Pacific RaiIways-They Are Par
nIIeI and Competing Lines-JudGe
Tbayer's OpiniOn-J. p. Morgan
saws the Securities Company Will
AvDeaI to the Supreme Court.
st Paul, Mimi, April 9.-The po-
sition of the United States government
in the suit brought against the North
ern Securities Company, the Northern
Pacific and Great Northern railways
and individual officials and directors
Of those companies, was sustained in
4he decision handed down in the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals
in this city to-day.
The case was originally brought in
4he United States District Court here,
Int under a special act of Congress
was taken at once to the Court of APP
meals. which court was to expedite the
hearing and decision of the case in
ever manner possible. The taking of
York lasted for several weeks, and the
arguments in ST. Louis before Circuit
Judges Caldwell, Sanborn, Thayer and
VanDeventer, took several days.
The decision of the court was writ
ten by Judge Thayer and was filed in
this city, where the original action
was instituted An appeal to the
United States Supreme Court will be
taken Immediately. All four judges
concurred in the conclusions of the
court. which were stated by Circuit
Judge Thayer.
Judge Thayer, in the opinion, re-
cites the petition which was brought
under the antitrust act of 1890, ana
adds that under the act of Feb. IL, l9O3,
this case, being of general public i'm
portance," has been given precedence
over others and in every way eXpe-
dited. 1t is declared that from the ad-
missions of the pleadings the matters
of fact are that the roads were parallel
and competing lines that they had
Jointly secured control of the Burling-
ton Line; that in 1901 a holding COM
pany had been formed by large owners
of the stock of the Northern racine
and Great Northern Railways, by
which new company large stock in
terests had been acquired at an agreed
price and the court holds that the
scheme which was thus devised and
consummated Ted inevitably to the fol-
lowing results:
Controlled the Two Roads.
First. 1t placed the control of the
two roads in the hands of a single
person, to wit. the Securities Company,
by virtue of it's, ownership of large
majority of the stock of both COM
panies; second, it destroyed every mo-
tive for competition between two
roads engaged in interstate traffic,
which were natural competitors for
business, by pooling the earnings of
the two roads for the common benefit
of the stockholders of both companies;
and according to the familiar rule that
every one is presumed to intend what
is the necessary consequence of his own
acts, when done wilfully and deliber-
ately, we must conclude that those who
conceived and executed the plan afore-
said intended, among other things, to
accomplish these objects"
On the point whether the present
case comes within the inhibition of the
antitrust act, the court discusses
the meaning of the word trust as used
in the act, and adds that Congress
''was careful to declare that a COM
hination in any other form, If in re-
merce, that is, if it directly occasioned
or effected such restraint, should like
wise be deemed illegal. Moreover, in
cases arising under the act, it has
been held by the highest judicial au-
thority in the nation, and it's opinion
has been reiterated in no uncertain
tone, that the act applies to inter-
state carriers of freight and passengers
as we'll as to all other persons, natural
10
straint of trade or commerce do not
mean in unreasonable or partial re-
straint of trade or commerce, but any
direct restraint thereof; that an agree
ment between competing railroads,
which requires them to act in concert
III liking the rate for the carriage
of passengers or freight over their re-
Spective lines from one state to an
other, and which by that means re-
stricts temporarily the right of any
other of such carriers to name such
rates for the carriage of such freight
or passengers over it's road, as it
pleases, is a contract in direct restraint
OF commerce within the meaning of the
act, in that it tends to prevent COM
pelton; that it matters not whether,
while acting under such a contract,
lhe rate fixed is reasonable or unrea-
Sonable, the vice of such contract
OF combination being that it confers
the power to establish unreasonable
rates, and directly restraints commerce
ny placing obstacles in the way of free
ana unrestricted competition between
carriers who are natural rivals for
patronage; and, finally, that Congress
mas the power, under the grant of
authority contained in the federal
constitution to regulate commerce, to
Say that no contract or combination
small be legal which shall restrain in
terstate trade or commerce by shutting
vi the operation of the general law of
competition.
would Violate Antitrust Act.
Taking the foregoing propositions
-or granted, it is almost too plain for
%lBument that the defendants would
nave violated the antitrust act if they
ndu done, through the agency of nat
uiai persons, what they have accom-
HIshed through an artificial person of
t tnelr own creation. That is to say,
=, the same individuals who promoted
me Securities Company in pursuance
previous understanding or agree
i1eht so to do, had transferred their
SUCK in the two railroad companies
20 third party or parties and had
Ssreed to induce other shareholders to
~ likewise, until a majority of the
oyock OF both companies had been vest
e0 IN single individual or association
VI Individuals, and had empowered the
tuoIqer or holders to vote the stock as
t.IeIr own, receive all the dividends