Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-03-15


ries, the Northern Pacific and the Great
Northern and their leading stOckhold-
ers for the purpose of dissolvng the
merger of the two roads which the
United States claimed had been Great
ed by the organization of holding
company, the securities company. This
consolidation was claimed to be in ViO-
latiOn OF the Sherman antitrust law.
1t was claimed on behalf of the govern
ment that this consolidation was in ef
feet pool created to promote the in
terests. not of one system at the ex-
pense of the other. but of both at the
expense of the public. The railroads
claimed that the transfer of the stock
of the two companies to the securities
company was in the nature of sale
and perfectly legitimate.
The contentious of the securities
company We're revealed and Justice
Harlan said they had received full at
tention. He quoted the various Opin
ions involving the trust question, say
! ing that from them it is to be gath
cred that all contracts in restraint of
trade, reasonable or unreasonable are
prohibited by the Sherman law and
| that Congress has the power to es-
|
down in the law. Congress had power
to enact the statute.
| Replying in detail to the points made
/ for the Securities Co. Justice Harlan
said that the contention that the law
is an interference with the rights of
the individual states by which the CONF
panies are incorporated was not we'll
founded. In such cases. he said, the au-
| thOrity of Congress is supreme. He also
/ declared it to be unnecessary to deter
mine the right of owners of railroad
| stock to sell their property nor was it
| true that the right of the Securities Co.
| to own and hold railroad stock is the
| only question involved. Such conten-
| tons are wide of the mark-mere men
of straw. All that the government COM
| plains of is the eXiStance of q corpora
| ton to repress commerce and is not
concerned with other points. Justice
| Harlan said that in this day should
| there be doubt of the complete power
OF Congress to control interstate COM
merce. all appropriate means might be
| resorted to for that purpose. All the
| prior trust cases We're in support of
| that contention. Whether free and I'M
| restrained competition was wise, he
said. was an economical question with
which the court need rot concern it
self, the question was that of statutory
law. He asserted the power of Con-
| gress over interstate commerce to be
as complete as the power of state
| over domestic commerce. Coming tC
| the plea~of the railroads that the anti
| trust law should be declared uncOnst-
| tutional. he said that the court could
not see its way to that end.
| IF" he went on, the securities com.
| ranios' contentious are sound, why
may not all the railroads of the United
States enter into a combination and
by the device of Il holding corporation
control rates throughout the country
| in defiance of Congress?''
| Justice Harlan also took occasion tc
say that there had been nothing in the
securities company's certificate of in
| corporation to indicate its purpose to
be that of destroying commerce and
he. therefore. absolved the state of
| New Jersey from any charge of such
| knowledge in advance. 1t might be
true that federal court had no power
| to dissolve Il corpora ton of a state but
| this circumstance could not be an in
| dication of powerlessnesS to enforce
| the law. than which no corporation is
| stronger. No device could suffice to
prevent this enforcement of the ma
| tioral statutes.
! The courts had been indeed consist
entity held to the supremacy of the ma
| tiOnal laws in case of conflict between
| those laws and the laws of the states
So long as Congress confined itself to
it's prescribed functions. he said. there
| could be no danger. At any rate the
error. if any, was with Congress to
| supply the remedy. and not for the
courts.
| Justice Harlan also discussed the pre-
dictiOns of financial disaster from the
| enforcement of the antitrust law, but
discouraged them saying they We're
usual under such circumstances and
need not be realized. Justice Harlan
declared that the omly object of the
merger was to prevent competition
and he said that if no one else knew
this to be the case. J. Pierpont Nor
gan. one of the defendants. knew that
| to have been the case. Extracts from
| Mr.. Morgan's testimony We're quoted
| in support of this statement.
The decree of the circuit court. he
scope and it had in no way exceeded
| its authority The law must not be mar
| rowly construed. but reasonably con-
strued. The defendants could not COM
plain of the finding of the circuit court
! ard Justice Harlan in conclusion an
nounced the confirmation OF the de-
cision of that court SAYING
The judgement of this court is that
the decree below of the circuit court
be and hereby is affirmed. with liberty
TO the circuit court TO proceed in the
! execution Of the decree as the circum-
stances may require
The decision was concurred in by
| Justices Brown. Brewer. Mckenna
and Day. while the chief justice and
Justices White, Pecllham and Holmes
dissented.
Justice Harlan concluded at lis. He
was followed by Justice Brewer, who.
while concurrins in the judgment. did
not accept all of the language of the
opinion.
Justice Holmes read the dissenting
opinion. He construed the antitrust
law as criminal statute and declared