The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-03-14
Us stronger. No device could suffice
ito prevent this enforcement OF the
tin,,ol mt + . AZ

states. So long as congress confined
itself to it's present functions, he said
there could be no danger. Al any
rate, the error, if any was with con-
gress and it was for congress to supply
the remedy and not for the courts.
Justice Harlan also discussed the
tpredictions of financial disaster from
the enforcement of the antitrust laws
but discouraged them, saying they
were usual under such circumstances
and need not be realized.
Justice Harlan declared that the
only object of the merger was to pre-
vent competition and he said that II
no one else knew this to be the case,
y. Pierpont Morgan, one of the defend
iants, knew that to have been the case.
Extracts from Morgan's testimony
were quoted in support Of this state
ment.
Evidence Upholds Charge.
.In our judgment said Justice
Harlan, 1.-The evidence fully sustatns
the material allegations Of the bill and
Fshows a violation Of the act of con-
gress, in so far as it declares 1llegai
every combination or conspiracy in re-
straint of commence among the sever
| al states and with foreign nations, and
forbids attempts to monopolize such
commerce.
Laying aside the many things of
a minor character and summarizing
the principal facts, it is indisputable,
upon this record, that under the lead
ership of the defendants, Hill and
Morgan, the stockholders OF the Great
Northern and Northern Pacific rail-
way corporations, having competing
and substantially parallel lines from
the great lakes and the Mississippi
river to the Pacific ocean at Puget
sound, combined and conceived the
scheme of organizing g. corporation
under the laws Of New Jersey which
should hold the shares OF stock OF the
fconstituent companies.
Condemned by the Act. =
Continuing, Justice Harlan said:
''This combination is. within the
meaning of the act, trust but II
mot, it Is a combination in restraint
of Interstate and International COM
smerce. and that is enough to bring
1T under a condemnation OF the act.
He held that If such a combination
were not destroyed, all the advantages
that would naturally come to the pub
lie under the operation of the gener-
al laws Of competition as between the
Great Northern and Northern Pacific
companies will be lost and the entire
commerce Of the immense territory IN
the northern part Of the United States
between the great lakes and the Ia
cif1c at Puget sound will be at the
mercy Of a single holding corporation,
organized in a state distant from tue
people Of that territory"
Charge of Interference.
Discussing the contention of the de-
PENDANTS that the enforcement Of the
act of congress would be an Interior
ence by the national government with
the internal commerce of the states
creating those corporations, Justice
Harlan said:
This view does not impress U.S. There
is no reason to suppose that congress had
any purpose to interfere with the inter-
nal affairs Of the state nor Is there any
ground whatever for the contention that
the antitrust act regulates their domestic
comm cree. ....
By it's very terms the act regulates only
commerce among the staes and In the for-
eign states. Viewed in that ISnC the acl
must be respected.
By the explicit words Of the constitution
that instrument and the laws enacted by
congress in pursuance Of it's provisions are
the supreme law Of the land-anything II
the constitution or laws of any state, tt
the contrary Notwithstanding "-supremt
i over the the states, over the courts ant
I even over the people Of the United States
the source of all power under our govern
ment system in respect Of the objects fo]
which the constitution was ordained.
An act of congress constitutional!
/ passed under its power to regulate com
merce among the staes and with foreign
nations is binding upon all as much as /
it were embodied, in terms, In the const1
tuition itself"
y Prior Decisions Cited.
To sustain the contention Of the de
4 PENDANTS that the antitrust act, If hell
! to embrace the merger case, is repug
! nant to the constitution Of the United
I States, Justice Harlan said, would b.
to overrule the prior decisions of tn
court as to the scope and validity o
.she antitrust act.
eff congress- he said, could strik
down a combination between privat
persons or private corporations tina
restrain trade among the states, surel.
it ought not to be doubted that con
gress has power to declare illegal
mbination that restraints commerc
among the states, and with foreigl
of competing railroad companies Il
the exercise of public franchises an
engaged in such commerce."
Justice Harlan quoted number o
decisions and concluded as follows:
"Guided by these long-estab
rules Of construction, 1t is NANTES
that If the antitrust act is held no
to embrace a case such as is now be
fore us, the plain intention Of tn
legislative branch Of the government
will be defeated" A.
Justice Harlan said that the de
PENDANTS have no just cause to com
plain of the decree of the lowe
court in matter Of law and it Shout
be affirmed.
The decree Of the circuit court, h
said, could not have been of, smalle
scope, and it had in no way exceede
its authority. The law must not be mar
rowly construed, but reasonably cor
strued. The defendants could nc
complain Of the finding of the circu
court, and Justice Harlan, in conclU
sion, announced the confirmation {
the decision Of that court, saying:
1.-The judgment of this court is thu
the decree below of the circuit coul
be, and hereby is, affirmed, with lii
erty to the circuit court to procee
in the execution of the decree as tn
circumstances may require"
The decision was concurred in b
IS Justices Brown, Brewer, McKenn
and Day. while the chief justice an
Justices White, Peckham and Holme
dissented. .
Justice Harlan was followed, by Ju!
tice Brewer. who, while concurring
the judgment, did not accept all
the language of the opinion.
Referring to the point of persona
That