The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-12-16

by the securities company acquire the
stock and pay for it with its own obliea-
lions secured by pledge of the stock ac-
qulreo All the roads west of the Mis-
souri, river which were brought into tenn. |
porary harmony under, the Trans Missouri |
arrangement could easily be brought into |
permanent harmony, without physical con-
slderatfon under the arrangement I have
described. |
Rope Of Sand.
cannot think that a combina ton held
together by a rope Of sand comes within
the prohibition of the law and that one
which is bound by links of steel may defy
its wisdom and it's power.
lo prevent such dangerous concen-
tfatlon or power, dangerous to commerce
and menace to our freedom the people
nave done all that 1t is possible for them
| to do under system of government
They have legislated against It. II this
law can be construed so as not to cover
the situation. or If the court saws Yea to
the proposition affirmed in the last para
graph OF Mr.. Morgan's answer, namely,
congress mas no power to prevent such
combinations. then indeed, the govern
ment's grave concern as to this litigation
may be easily understood.
| Judge Young in Defense.
MI. Knox was followed by George
Is. Young on behalf Of the securities
company. He began by saying that
/ his clients do not seek in any wav to
| limit the authority of congress over
interstate commerce, nor was the Sc
curltles company seeking in any way
to evade the law. But it was not. he
| said, necessary to stretch a law cover
ing interstate commerce to make It
cover something that is not Interstate
| commerce. ..
Eve are not dealing here with
| mr. hn
roads at all" he said, but we are
! dealing with the question of prop
| erty. -
He referred to previous cases in the
supreme court under the antitrust
law and said that congress had not de-
fined the restraint Of trade and that
1t had been necessary for the court to
make its own definitions. In the joint
traffic case the roads dealt with were
competing In character, but suppose
they had not been competitors and
they had agreed to reduce rates?
straint of trade, for the gist of con-
tract is found In the obligation that it
! lays upon the parties to it.
Was Power Exercised.
All contracts in restraint of trade
are, Mr.. Young said, largely executory
and he contended that the true view
of the law must be In the same line
as tIdL VI COISplIdC1eS. lHSfo might
be power to effect commerce, but to
come within the conviction of the law,
| the power must be exercised.
! Mr.. Young also discussed the sugar
trust case which, he said, was often
misunderstood. In that case a num-
solidated. The companies were as
much engaged in commerce as were
the purchasers of these railroad
shares. Indeed, he contended that
the transfer of shares Of stock was not
commerce at all and by way of illus
tration he said that the holder of
railroad shares was no more engaged
in commerce than is the holder of
Fstock in a baseball company engaged
Hin playing baseball.
Mr.. Young said that no matter how
a unity of ownership might arise,
whether by inheritance, sale or other
wise, the same suppression Of compe-
tition arose as incident to the owner
ship of the property and not as the re-
suit Of -<he contract to sell or even Of
the sale itself. -.sf
Continuing. he said he would not
argue the constitutional question as be
tween the state and the federal gov
eminent. but he referred to the attor-
ney generals discussion Of that sub
1 ject. In cases Of consolidation the
! subject matter must be found in thu
act of consolidation itself and it did
| ="
ing or connected. He contended that
if congress had power to regulate, its
regulation must be uniform. It could
not be held that the law was effective
in one state and imperative in an
other.
General Practice of Railroads.
Turning his attention to the intent
of congress in enacting the anti
trust law. Mr.. Young said:
the powers of the states to regulate stock
holding in railroads? [ think it will be
= generally conceded that there is no better
guide to the meaning of congress than the
j. general practice which has been pursued
r from the beginning of railroads down to
= the time of the antitrust law.
2 We have pointed out this practice in the
l leading states of the union of state Iegis-
l lation authorized the consolidation of com
: peting roads. either by consolidation and
} union Of the two companies, or. by allow
! ing one company to take perpetual lea sc
t of the other or by acquiring all of the
stock of the other.
With reference to monopoly he said
that it was very difficult to determine
under the decisions Of the courts
what a monopoly is; yet the govern
ment, he said, is very definite in tell
ing what it is. AS for himself. he
thought Judge Jackson's definition
correct. Inc eSSGllLldl lfllllS III mo-
nopoly is the exclusion of others. The
= supreme court he said, had failed to
e define the word. -. 5-#.--
Coming to the matters of fact in
n the case, he contended that the law
!. had not been violated The inception
. Of the Northern Securities company
! was reviewed and Mr.. Young com
:, planned that Mr.. Knox, in his argu-
= ment, had gone back to 1895 and tC
= the Pearsall case. He also spoke OF
9 the attorney generals reference to Mr.
& Hill, saying that that gentleman
# seemed to be the bette noir in the
O case. But instead of the early re-
Y organization being due to Mr.. Hill, il
d was, Mr.. Young declared. due to the
]. European shareholders of the Great
Northern. 1t was not fair to say thai
the purchase at that time had beer
made at the expense of the Northern
Pacific.
No Evidence of Conspiracy.
'',rhe petition charges that we con
n spired," continued Mr.. Young, ITO do tW'
: things. One was to form the Northern
n Securities company. The other was t,
10 furnish it with a controlling interest o
the stock of the two companies; that w
d agreed at that time to use our influence
o and persuasion with the other sharehold
+ ers of the Great Northern to get them t
g transfer their shares to the Securitie