The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-12-15
Northern Securities Case
in Supreme Court.
COURT ROOM CROWDED
John G. Johnson Opens For the North
ern Securities Company, Laying
Down Six Propositions as
the Basis Of His Argu-
ment.
ment.
(By the Associated Press. }

Washington, Dec. 4.-Ihe supreme
Court of the United States today began
hearing arguments in the case of the
Northern Securities Company, the Great
Northern Railroad Company, the North
ern Pacific Company, James ]. Hill, J.
Pierpont Morgan, Daniel S. Lamont and
others Us. the United States, coming to
this court on appeal fro mthe decision of
the Circuit court for the District of Min
nesota The decision was to the effect
that the purchase of the greater share of
the stock of the two railroad companies
constituted a merger and was contrary to
the Sherman antitrust law. The case in
wolves the community of-interest principle.
There has been much interest in the
case and when it was called today Tie
court room was crowded, both inside and
outside the bar Attorney General Knox
was present with an array of assistants,
while the opposition was represented by
a long list of distinguished counsel, IN
cluding former Attorney General Griggs,
John G. Johnson, of Philadelphia; c. w.
Bum and Charles B. Young. Justice
Brown was the only member of the court
not present Among those present were
Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Knox.
John G. Johnson, representing the
Northern Securities Company, took sharp
exception to the decision of the circuit
court That the possessio nof the power
which the Securities Company was vio-
ation of the law, and contended that
such holding was not in accord with de-
cisions of the Supreme court, which were
uniformly to the effect that it is the use
o+ bo nf If
constitute the Offense
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 conspiracy
to restrain competition between these two
railway companies or to restrain trade
The second proposition is that if two
railway companies, somewhat in competl-
ton with themselves find it necessary,
in order to sustain their competition
against a third company, which otherwise
could destroy them or greatly interfere
with their usefulness to the public, to
combine in company for the purpose OF
protecting themselves against destruction;
that the court must look to the matter
one of fact, to determine whether the real
purpose was to destroy smaller competl-
tion in order to promote trade by the
establishment of the greater competition.
The third proposition is that if the hold
ing of the Northern Securities Company
of the majority of the shares of the two
companies was violation of the Sherman
Act of course an agreement amongst any
number of persons would be violation
of that act
The fourth proposition is that the first
section of the Sherman Act does not In
any way condemn as illegal the acquisition
or ownership of the shares of the two com
peting companies.
The fifth proposition is that the second
section of the Sherman Act does not in any
wav condemn the acquisition of such own
ership of shares.
The sixth proposition is that if the Sher-
man Act does condemn as Illegal the own
ership of controlling interest in the
shares of the competing railway compan-
les, that it is unconstitutional
Mr.. johnson contended 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
shares of stock have the property right
to transfer their shares, and that it would
be an absurdity to speak of such trans
fer between individuals as a crime.
He contended that corporations should
have the same right as individuals. To
contend otherwise, he declared would lead
to untold mischief
Justice White interrupted Mr. Johnson
to observe that as he understood the point
it would be unlawful for corporation to
do what an individual might do.
IN which case" continued Justice
White, you leave the power to compete
only in the hand of very wealthy indi-
vidual. Is not the answer to this, that
the facility with which corporations can
be formed renders much more feasible the
existence of competitions than would exist
in case only very rich man could eXer
else that power?"
Mr.. Johnson admitted in reply that was
common sense view and then reverted
to the decision of the Circuit Court
against the Securities Company because
it has the power to restrain trade. Mr..
Johrson declared that this decision was
something new in jurisprudence.
Few of su have a desire to commit
murder" he said, but many of us Use d
razor which give us the power to murder.
Mr.. Johnson was followed by c. w.
Bum, who spoke especially for the North