The citizen-Republican. (Scotland, Bon Homme County, S.D.) 1???-19??, 1904-03-17
DONE By DIVIDED COURT
Majority Opinion by Justice Harlan Is
Vigorous in It's Position That the
Combination Was Subject
to the Law.

trict of Minnesota. Inc erect Is 10
sustain the contention that the Sher-
man anti-trust law applies to railroad
combinations of the character in ques-
ton.
Justice Harlan said that in the merg-
er of the two roads the stockholders
disappeared and r%eappeared again in
the securities company, the two thus
becoming practically consolidated in
the holdings of the company, the prin-
cipal object being to prevent compett-
ton.
mo scheme or device could certainly
more effectively come within the pro-
hibition of the antitrust law, and it Is
within the meaning of the act a trust"
Grounds for the Opinion.
Justice Harlan quoted various opin-
ions involving the tTust question. say
| ing that from them it is to be gathered
| hat all contracts in restraint of trade,
or unreasonable, are pro-
| hibited by the Sherman law, and that
| has power. to establish such
regulations as are laid down In that
| law. Congress had power to enact the
| statute.
The case has attracted universal at
I lSIlllOil- dlIi d DSN3! IT -
| bench and bar as equal in Importance
| with the insular and income tax cases.
The suit was instituted by the United
States against the Northern Securities
company, the Northern Pacific and
| Great Northern railroad companies,
and their leading stockholders, for the
| purpose of ~dissolying the merger Of the
| two roads, which the United States de-
clared had been created by the creation
| of Il holding company, the Securities
company.
This consultation was claimed to be in
| violation of the Sherman antitrust law,
and was in effect q pool created TO pro-
mote the interests of both roads at the
| expense of the public. The railroads
claimed the transfer Of stock OF the two
companies to the Securities company
was in the nature of a sale, and per-
fectly legitimate. The contentious of
the Securities company We're reviewed
by Justice Harlan, who said they had
received full attention.
How th.e Court Divided.
The decision was c%oncurred in by
| Justices Brown, Brewer, McKenna and
| Day, while Chief Justice Fuller and
Justices White, Peckham and Holmes
| dissented. Justice Brewer c%oncurred in
emf reasons thai those of the majority.
# sweeping SStISt tSiSfl5
Justice Harlan said the contention
that the law is an interference with the
| rights of the individual states by which
| the companies are incorporated was not
we'll founded. In such cases he said
the authority of congress is supreme.
He also declared it to be unnecessary
to determine the right of the owners
Of railroad stock to sell the property;
| nor was 1t true that the right of the Sc
[ n,,rtfiac comma ~ tna own and hold rntI l.
road stock was the only question in
volved.
He asserted, however, the power of
congress oVer interstate commerce to
be as complete as the power of the
state over domestic commerce.
Coming to the plea of the railroads
that the antitrust laws should be de-
clared unconstitutional, he said that
the court could not see it's way to that
end.
If" he went on, the Securities com
pany's contentious are sound, why may
not all the railroads of the United
States enter into q combination, and
by the device of Holding corporation
control rates throughout the country,
In defiance of congress?"
Justice Harlan took occasion to say
that there had been nothing in the Sc
curities company's certificate of incor-
poration to indicate its purpose to be
that of destroying commerce, and he,
therefore, absolved the state of New
Jersey from any charge of such knowl-
edge in advance.
No Disaster to Be Feared.
Justice Harlan also discussed the pre-
dictions of financial disaster from en-
forcement Of the antitrust law, but
discouraged them, saying they We're
usual under such circumstances and
need not be realized.
He declared the only object of the
merger was to prevent competition, and
said If no one else knew this to be the
case, ]. P%ierpont Morgan knew it to
have been true. Extracts from Mr..
Morgan's testimony We're quoted in
support of this state ent.
The Dissenting Opinion.
Justice Holmes read the dissenting
opinion. He construed the antitrust
law as a criminal statute and declared
there was nothing in it to indicate that
1t had been enacted merely for the con-
trol of large concerns, as is generally
commended. Indeed, the law had not
been understood as applying to rail
a until SO construed by the supreme
court. The act, he commended, applies
only to contracts nj combinations in
restraint of trade, and makes no refer,
ence to competition.
The Missouri Case.
Previous TO the present decision tho
most significant decision Of the SUI
preme court under the Sherman law
wa In the case of the Trans Missouri,
Freight association, a pool OF business
among competing roads. The eour,
neld the pool violation Of the Law
and ordered II dissolved.
Pooling thus being knocked ott. thf
GTaS0 consultations pf vt,ayrbfN u