The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1903-12-15
COURTROOM CROWDED.
Argument in Merger Case Begun II
Supreme Court.

Washington, Dec 15-Immediately
after disposing Of its routine morning
business the supreme court of the
United States began hearing argu
ments in the case Of the Northern Sc
enrities company, James J. Hill, J. p
Morgan. Daniel s. Lamont and others
VS. the United States, coming to this
court on appeal from the decision o.
the circuit court for the district o.
Minnesota. That decision was 10 the
effect that the purchase of the greater
share Of the stock of the two railroad
companies constituted a merger anf
was contrary TO the Sherman anti
trust law The case involves the com
munity of interest principle.
There has been much interest in the
case and when it was called the court
room was crowded both inside and
outside the bar. Attorney General
Knox was present with quite An array
OF assistants from his office, while the
opposition also was represented by 9
long list of distinguished counsel in
Guiding former Attorney General
Griggs. John NJ. Johnson of Philadel
pbia. G. w Bum and Charles b
Young Justice Brown was the only
member of the court not present.
John G. Johnson. representing the
Northern Securities company. made
the first argument
Mr.. Johnson said that what he had
10 say would be stated in six PROPOSE
tions. which he outlined briefly as fol
lows:
The first Is that there was no agree
ment, contract, combination or con
spiracy
to Restrain Competition
between these two railway companies
or to restrain trade But that, on the
contrary, whatever contract or under
standing there was in the case, as es-
tablished by uncontradicted testimony
was to enlarge, to create and. in every
way possible, to improve trade and
commerce.
The second proposition is that II
two railway companies, somewhat In
competition with themselves. decide it
necessary in order to sustain Their
competition against third company.
which otherwise could destroy them or
greatly interfere with their usefulness
to the public. 70 combine in any way
for the purpose of protecting them
selves against destruction and in or
der. by means Of that protection, to
make greater competition with a
greater rival on great scale for their
advantage and for the public. the
court must look to the matter as one
of fact, to determine whether the real
purpose was to destroy or to lead 10
the distinctions in order to promote
trade by the establishment of the
greater competition.
The third proposition is that II the
holding of the Northern Securities
company OF the majority of shares of
the two companies was violation OF
the Sherman act of course an agree
ment amongst any number OF persons
would he 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 competing companies.
The fifth proposition is that the sec
ond section of the Sherman act does
not in any way condemn the acquisl-
tion and holding of such ownership OF
shares
The sixth proposition is that II the
Sherman act does condemn as illegal
the ownership of a controlling interest
in the shares of the competing railway
companies that 1t is unconstitutional.