Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-12-16

the transfer of shares of stocks was not
commerce at all and by way of illustration
he said that the holder of railroad shares
was no more engaged in commerce than
/ is the holder of stock in a baseball COM
/ pany engaged in playing baseball.
! Mr. Young had spoken only 20 minutes
when. at o'clock, the court took a recess
/ for lunch.
| When the court re-assembled, MI
Young continued his argument saying
| that no matter how a unity of ownership
might arise, whether by inheritance, sale
or otherwise. the same suppression OF
/ competition arose, as an incident to the
ownership of the property and not as the
result of the contract to sell or even OF
| the sale itself.
| Continuing he said he would not argue
| the constitutional questions between the
state and the federal government, but he
referred to the attorney generals Discus
sion Of that subject. In cases of consol-
| idation the subject matter must be found
| in the act of consolidation itself and it
did not matter whether they were COM
peting or connected. lie contendcd that
| if Congress had the power 10 regulate, It's
| regulation must be uniform. 1t could not
| be held that the law was effective in one
state and imperative in another
Turning his attention to the intent
OF Congress i'll enactinG the antitrust
| law. Mr.. Young said:
Did Congress intend to interfere
with the powers of the states to reSu-
! late stOckholdings in railroads? We
have pointed out this practice in the
| -taf nf bn
designation authorizing the consolida-
ton of competing roads either by con-
solidatiCn and union of the two COM
panies or by allowing one company to
take perpetu lease of the other, or by
acquiring ali of the stock of the other.
Now that has been going on from the
very beginning.
| 1t is reasonable to believe that Con-
gress by that one line of the statute,
every contract, combination Or con-
Spracy in restraint of trade is hereby
declared and made misdemeanor,
meant to declare that all State regula-
lions We're unconstitutional? | do not
think that Congress is passing q rem
edial statute intended to pass such an
Iact"
With reference to monopoly, he said
that the essential thing in monopoly is
the exclusion Of others. The supreme
court, he said, had failed to define the
word.
Coming to the matter of fact in the
case, he contended that the law had
not been violated. The inception OF
the Northern Securities Co. was re-
viewed and Mr.. Young complained
that Mr.. Knox in his argument, had
gone back to 1895, and to the Pearsall
case. Instead of the early re-organiza-
ton being due to Mr.. Hill is was, Mr.
Young declared due to the European
shareholders OF the Great Northern. It
was not fair to say that the purchase
at that time had been made at the cx-
pense of the Northern Pacific.
Mr.. Young also complained of mis-
representation of the facts in the case
by the circuit court.
THE petition charges that we con
spircd," continued MI Young. 10 DC
two things. One was to form the North
, orn Securities Company. The other was
| |" furnish it with controlling interest
| OF the stock of the two companies that
we agreed at that a time to use our inil.-
ence and persuasion with the other share.
/, holders of the Great Northern to gel
|
Cnrities Company 1t also states that the
Securities Company having got So, 900, GOO
OF stock from US, got $50, 0jU,GG0 from other
| shareholders.
Now, upon that point there is not only
no evidence at all to the effect that they
used their influence with the other share
holders, but the evidence is that each
| shareholder acted for himself.
| 'ConSlGcrinG that Mr., Till had been the
president of the Great Northern since ita
Incorporation. it was only natural That
: .,l,, |, H., i
ask his opinion. MIR. Hill wrote several
letters in reply to these Questions but
not for general circulation, but to he sent
| only in case of inquiry"
ile also Contendcd that the transfer OF
. the stock of the railroad companies to thc
Securities Company had been entirely free
| from the features which had operated t.
throw discredit upon the formation Of
trusts. There was no million dollar com
mission nor any other incident of The
uSlla! character. Indeed. he asserted That
| the combination was in 10 sense n trust.
The transaction was nothing more than (,
| transfer of property
we are proceeding upon the theory
he said. that an out and out Saic was
b, made. and. ne went on unless the court
is prepared to hold that Congress should
exercise exclusive control OF all transfers
of Transportation agencies engaged in in
tcr-Statr commerce, We fail to see how
this transaction can be held to he a com
hination in restraint of trade, or a vio-
lation of the ANTITRUST law.
| Mr.. Young closed with Il discussion and
denial Of the charge that the parties to
this combination had been guilty of con-
spiracy.
| Nh Young concluded at 2 Il j. NJ. and
as his was the last argument Of the Sc
rics. the court passed to the consideration
of other business.
During the day the chief justice made
inquiry of counsel in the case as TO
| whether there would be objection TO the
participation of Justice Brown in the casn
| Notwithstanding his absence from The
| bp1, II Mr..c... X md