The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1903-04-13
GIGANTIC RAILWAY TRUST
DEALT STAGGERING BLOW


Company. the Northern Pacific the Great
Northern railways, and indj 'pal off
clais and directors of thos. Nro, les,
was sustained in the decision "tOU,
down in the United States circuit e, So
Of appeals in this city today.
The case was originally brought in the
United States district court here. but
Under special act of congress was
taken at once to the court of appeals.
which court was to expedite the hearing
and decision of the case in every man
ner possible. The taking Of testimony in
this city and in New York lasted for
several weeks and the arguments in st.
Louis before Circuit Judges Caldwell,
Sanborn. Thayer and Van Deventer took
several days. The decision of the court
was written by Judge Thayer and was
filed in this city. where the original
action was instituted. An appeal TO the
nted States supreme court will ne taken
Immediately. All four judges concurrad
In the conclusions of the court. which
were stated by Circuit Judge Thayer.
Summary of Opinion.
Judge Fhayer, in the opinion. recites the
petition which was brought; under the
antitrust act of 1892 and adds that under
the act Of February II, 1903 this case
being Of general public Importance has
been given precedence over others, and
In every way expedited. 1t is declared
that from the admissions Of the plead
lngs the matters Of fact are that the
roads were parallel and competing lines;
that they had Jointly secured control of
the Burlington line; that in 1901 a hold
ing company had been formed by large
owners of the stock of the Northern Pa
clfc and Great Northern railways. by
which new company large stock interests
had been acquired al an agreed price, and
the court holds that the scheme which
was thus devised and consumma ted led
inevitably to the following results:
i. it placed the control of the two
roads in the hands of single person, to-
wit, the Securities company. by virtue of
its ownership of a large majority of the
stock of both companies. ,. 1t destroy
I'd every motive for competition betweeI
two roads engaged in interstate traffic.
which We're natural competitors for bust
ness. by pooling the earnings of the two |
roads for the common benefit of the stock !
holders Of both companies: and, according |
10 the familiar rule that every one is pre- !
sumed 10 intend what is the necessary !
consequence of his own acts. when done |
Htfu'fy and de- beTateiy, mus. con
ClDfe that those who conceived and |
ecuted the plan aforesaid. intended, among |
o1her Things, to accomplish these OBJ |
jects'-
Merger and Antitrust Act.
on the point whether the present case |
comes within the inhibition OF the anti
trust act. the court discusses the mean !
Ing Of the word trust a used in the act. |
md adds that congress was careful !
10 declare that A combination in any |
sther form il in restraint of interstate
trade or commerce. that it. If it directly |
nrcasioned or effected such restraint
et,,,td Ii,,or.feo ~ 7o,o, +nor, NJ I
over, IN cases arising under the act. IL
has been held by the highest judicial au-
thoritv in the nation and its oninion Las
been reiterated in no Uncertain tone. that
me act applies TO Interstate carriers OF
iIt'eht ana passengers. as well as TO ali
rt'er pFis"nf' Halural or asLnc'3i tha'
IN "piuS III restraint OF "a'e OF COM
uie'ee % no' mean IN unreasonable
~ p"i tia' titiill OF .tduc or commerce.
In agreement baty,een connatin, ~
roads. which requires them 10 act in con
cert in fixing the rate for the carnage
ni passengers 81 freight over their IL
lpeS'.Et mes i2nl one state 10 ahother'
ml,r ti''h o> M nleaIls' rtSer' cte TEN,
carriers to name s,,cb ratne I'm. III. cav
rage of such freight or passengers o\cl.
is road as II Dleases ie contr,c. IN !
oirec+ restraint n con,,narce win, w.
p}aanjnp ~ thn act in MAJ II ttnde IN |
nrevert cnn,netitior. MAJ = maze not |
whether while ~ ting ,1ndar sIrci, q 90,
reaeona bic tho vice Of such q ,ontrart |
or com fna+jon heinz that il ron+e,s t,e /
oower to establish unreasonable rat,s /
and directly restrail1s commerce h, rIac-
ing obstacles in the way Of free and IN !
restricted connection between carriers
who are natural rivals for patrouage- /
and finally. that congress has the mower !
under tho grant Of authority conta ined il, /
rho federal constitution Ia rer1Iiafe cnrn /
1nerre 10 saw that no contract or cor
binatiou shall be legal which shall re-
strain interstate trade or commerce nv /
shutting off the operation the general Law /
of competition.
r. pa4x;,+ 80 r,o,,,
III neSt1aihI VI NoiAHeico'
Taking the foregoing PROPOSITIONS for
granted il is almost TOO plain for argl,
ment, that the defendants wou;d have
violated tne antitrust act II they h2d
Done through me agency Oh natural per
sons Whit tiIeE nave HrCoihl'iShFo
through an afti!ielai Pe'S"l 81 ineh owl
Ciedt'"H' Iii't - 10 say II '"' Sil"c 'i
CIV 'u"a'N WIZ At''''''e 81" '''''
COMPANY. III P"iSt'it@ ~ " p'tNiou tI-
Outstanding or agreement. 50 20 DO, han
transferred their stock IN the two rail |
read companies to third party. or par