New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-16

the merger OF he railroad interests saying:
The device resorted to ia this case IL sustained;
ss no re s e Tav e OF eifecai destrGction Of
competition than was sceo mplished IN the trans
The one secures permanent absolute control and
power to administer every feature Of management
and operation OF the properties. while the others
were but temporary arransei1 ents which reIateS 20
duration upon the VIII % die parties. -, I'D
Il Is Wholly lmmateraI in its effect upon commerce
whether the power 10 TX rates depends upon the
Srn1Sh the holdsg Of te,r soek or depends upon
the 6elegsticn OF power for that purpose oy inc
!: Is the enlargement. whatever It may be; vest
which iIlceal If that arrangement restrains inter
state commerce. ,,.,. ,,ool
You nay cali 1t merger. combination s. poG
conspiracy. consolidation contract e ac
sos company. or what You IKE ,t &c in name or
manner Of Bringing it shout -,.,,a have
re iehs 10 prevent the exercise Of the power 70
restrain interstate commerce Dg Llss;-stio3s con-
cusitio.. through contracts. connniT,a ~
sPrscies or monopolies; and IT is the 9be re-
sfra.nt Is brought about that the act declares
RE great object % Congress was to declare
policy against which 10 arTanGeSm themselves With
BY which the parties fully coup
the power 70 defeat its purpose.
NJ Eynox also declared that the power 10 sup
press competition had been exercised. aho 'ha'
Messrs Morgan and Hin had the power 10 SUP
p-rss competition between these W. 80 -.
tbev held the control OF the majority OF ue S'ooh
az TIE two He also asserted that they executed
that power an6 actually suppressed ard oestFoEee
-eornpetltion between them the moment they lzr'eo
with the legal title TO their segreSated hoioiilss
and vested them in the Northern secuTihes Nofh-
ns-, with .he power in that company. as its char-
..r snaciass ito exercise all the rights OF owner
chip. including the right TO vote thereon
GENERAL, PROPOSITIONS OF COMPETITION
-rsis he contended. actually destroyed compet-
Non between the two roads. ana IN support u '
statement he laId down the following genera
proposition;
To be competition there must be competitors III
Any Get wheh ei4 Inmates c taS
There IS no competition Wtiere tilS A'eN 'N -
oessIlon 90 ' a. -iy5r between the different de-
partments or agences as 20 5 10 which is the
MOST economically administered q oneiIe' - 81
wv sSartnE fxed proportion Of common donp'
unaffected BIZ the proportion CONF 'O1'e0 -
here is no connetiuo"-
NJ Knox then summed up his points IN support
- "a. ~,--s,,.so- that rs 2 fact this merger Is 4
,tfra+Io7 in the form or trust or otl1eF"'Se' aS
follows:
That the erd 1t accommodates is 70 bring N lnGs
ore control me ,ct way as to destroy competi.
ion between them and to create a hem
% 53s ed was the deliberate PURPOSE Of the
the ,sq s6rh Combination is in restraint Of t tTsae
as rorr 6oncrs have reDe2tedly oeeloso am '''0AN
fore violates the act O. NohE'esS'
he added:
To ali Of this defendants make Vigorous os sbai
ton much of which Is Wholly re inclination
~ he iaY6 nor discuss its economic value
presume that fact accoujs i fs s along the
laws designed to regulate we teliS. " TO PRO
lines of It's manifestation where necessaLii " ~
teet me rshS he SLIGHTEST doubt about it, however
that this particular nanif esiapon % o,I "a hiring
tbe entire railroad facilities OF an lmporlaI bt
OF the country 1nGeT m for transporta
ton YOU add the creation OF scores OF
Ss5 stock upon which these charges axe 80
20 nav dividends YOU impose an up]uStinanle O45
den upon the people ana ,S SaG law While it may be
sr75e that the recaplJallZa Jlon O us 3r .te-
was based e eEet oaTket values rested at that
time upon total forgetfun-sS OF siS e., conti11ousJ
ssnSs tbat these values were lifted upon the wings
Of an optimism that had converted into stock are
an hopes and expectations OF may -, - Zen
This thing was done when men VINO maze nave Pea Pea
regarded wise men and sale men Ui the
upon their judgment ano sJ instant personal ad-
Vantage the fruits which tonserEeu, "oo o1ia l'
issted many years and benefited many peopie.
NJ Knox then announced that it was not his IN
-, 20 address himself TO considerations such as
49, bur % such objections by the defendants
- The govern rnents case as will be consloereo os
,ba court He then took up the doctrine OF oFec'
sn5 immediate effect upon interstate commerce
on that point he said:
II is argued that II Is only such contracts an. sro
Combinations az directly and Immediately , amer
interstate commerce that are e en- eeciiyifies
srraneement oper.ates directly upon commerce De
oiicv and operation Of two gigantic systems OF
railroads by which commerce Is car Ia - fro15 one
Etste To or through another II is interstate com,
merge SpnT5e oT here Goes ii appear BY sggee:on
even that the purpose q oTganTns te c9T ~
control Of these two ROADS.
ALLEGED INVASION OF STATE RIGHTS.
The case Of United States vs.. Knight contains
nothing that the goye-nment nee qlsis u1Sn ~ .,
me tnstrurentalities Of production and productlon
srrs,Sr4aIities Of transportation. and transporta
fion is commerce There the restraint upon com
conTnsrce through its effect upon producton-i; E.
by monopolizng ploouc,loa reol,eo ff Sr
commerce But here il being monopoly OF inslru,
Is direct. Immediate and necessary.
The Attorney General next discussed the alleged
invasion Of State rights. "Of course. he said, "a
+s+ has certain powers over the instrumentalites
Of commerce which it creates, il has over the in
diyiduals by whom commerce is conducted. But q
State has no power either instrumentalties OF
individuals that can be interposed between them
and the obligations imposed by federal statute
regulating interstate commerce.
1.-THE question in this case is not whether Con-
gress can regulate and has regulated State corpora
lions the ownership Of their capital stock. The
question is. Can the owners Of such capital stock
regulate Interstate commerce?
1t Is settled law that interstate commerce can
not be regulated by State constitutions by State
legislatures eXistin under State constitutions nor
by corporations created by State legislatures act
ing through their directors as attempted in the
trans Missouri and joint traffic cases. Whence
cones such power. then. to stockholders. Il the
THE p0pElE AQITV