Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1904-03-17

| Court oil the u nlUeu Otdt6e COuhy HahuCu
down its decision in the case of the North
ern Securities Company vs. the United
States. The contentious of the Govern
ment are upheld and the merger is de-
clared to be in violation of the antitrust
act Justice Harlan read the opinion OF
the court.
The decision was by vote of five to
four, Justices Holmes, Peckham, White
and Fuller dissenting.
Justice Harlan first explained the ques-
tions at issue, being the enforcement Of
the antitrust act, in which Congress de-
clares illegal contracts or combinations in
restraint of trade, providing penalties.
Now, what is the case, as presented by
the peadings? Are the defendants prop
erly charged with monopolizng or at
tempting to monopolize trade between the
States?
'In our opinion" he said, "the evil
dence fully sustaiDs the Charge. y"
| ORGANIZATION OF COMPANY
"The Northern Securities Company was
organized as the holding corporation, or
the custodian of more than nine-tenths OF
the stock of the Northern Pacific and
three quarters of the Great Northern" he
said. Both lines were held as if held by
one ownership. The holding company
dominated the roads for the exclusive
benefit of its stockholders. 1t became one
powerful corporation, SO that competition
between the constituent companies might
close. The profits were to be distributed
on the basis Of stock held by the North
Securities Company.
"The combination is one in the shape
of trust No scheme or device could
more thoroughly be combination in the
form of trust in res raint of commerce.
1t is menace to and restraint of the
freedom of commerce.
"The contention of the defendants that
an opinion in its favor would not be con-
trary to the spirit of the antitrust law is
negative.
"How far may the courts 90 in regu'
lating the interstate commerce of State
corporations? If its stockholders combine
to restrain interstate trade, can they not
be held in check?'
The decision in the Joint Traffic Asso'
citation, the trans. Missouri cases, the Ad-
dyston (O) Pipe Company and others
were quoted to sustain the Governments
contention.
GOVERNMENT SUPREME.
He denied the sacredness Of the doc
trine that the right of States was being
trespassed on by the law. If State
should allow a railroad to do those things
which interfere with interstate commerce,
should Congress be compelled to hold
aloof on the ground that it would invade
State rightsP Such doctrine could not be
given effect without destroying the power
of national government No State can
give any corporation the right to restrain
interstate or international law. The Fed.
eral Court can not interfere with the
Northern Securities Company from exer'
cising it's State rights, justly given it by
the State, but it can prevent it from doing
that which would destroy the act OF Con-
gress.
"The affirmation of the decision below"
he said, "would only mean that no COM
bination is stronger than the law, or can
avail itself of the pretext that State rights
are attacked in the enforcement of law
ful act of Congress. No combination, be it 60
powerful, is beyond the reach of the su'
preme law, if it undertakes to restrain
commerce"
COMPETITION MUST BE FREE.
tWe deem it sufficient to say" contIn'
ued Justice Harlan, THAT certain deduc'
tions NAV be drawn from these decisions.
Every contract, combination or conspiracy
which operates IN restraint of trade is un'
lawful, whether it be an unreasonable or
reasonable restraint. There is no dstinc
ton. The law forbids such combination,
evan. among private manufacturers or
dealers. Congress clearly has the power
to establish rules governing commerce be-
tween the States and with foreign coun-
tries. Free competition is the rule pre-
scribed. To extinguish competition is to
restrain commerce. Itneed not be shown
that the elimination resulted in total
suppression of trade; it is unlawful If 1t
tends to create a monopoly or restrain
trade. Such tendency alone is against the
law.
The liberty of contracts is not impaired
by the act, which Congress had the an-
thority to enact. These principles, said
Justice Harlan, have been distinctly
announced in other cases.
He then considered the objections to
the Governments contention, raised by
the argument of the Northern Securities
Company's counsel, and demolished them
one by one. The objection that the act
deprived the COMPANY of the privilege OF
doing what it might lawfully do, under
, State law. was sternly met.
CONSTITUTIONS SUPREME
"The constitution of the United States
is the supreme law" he said. "a lawful
y constitutional act of Congress is as binding
}. on the States as though it we're In tbe con-
y stitution of the United States, the consti'
i. tuition of States to the contrary notwilh'
y standing. No State, let alone one CT its
e artificial creatures, can stand in its way.