The daily morning journal and courier., 1904-03-15
RAILROADS LOSE
 MERGER DECISION
GOHERNMENT WINS ITS CASE IN
 SUPREME COURT.
The Com blnaslon Held as Violating the Autl-rru.s Law and DessrOyIng Conn pe.ition-Ths Judges Divided, Five to
 Four-Justics Harlan Renders she Opinion af shs Majority Which Af- hrm. shs Power of congrsss Control
Inte.-stase cemmeros.


 Washington, March 14.-In the United States supreme court to-day an opinion was delivered in the merger case of the Northern Securities company vs. the United States in favor of the govern ment's contention that the merger was ! Illegal The opinion of the court was handed down by Justice Harlan, and it upheld the decree of the circuit court for the district of Minnesota in every particular Four of the justices dis sented from the five constituting the majority.
 The division in the court was due to a difference of opinion as to the right of the federal control of state corpora tions The majority opinion proceeded on the theory that congress has a right under the constitution to control inter- | state commerce, no matter by whom l conducted, while the minority or dis senting opinion was based on the the ory that in the present case the effort is to regulate the ownership of railroad stocks by state corporations, and that | such ownership is not interstate traffic.
 An effort was made by the court to | prevent knowledge of the fact that the I opinion was to be rendered to-day from going into public, but nevertheless it was quite generally understood among newspaper men, attorneys and others 1 for an hour or so before the converting of court to-day that the decision would | be announced. When, therefore, the members of the court filed into the | chamber at noon they were met by an 1 expectant crowd which filled every seat 1 both inside and outside the bar. Seat ! ed among the attorneys were Attorney l General Knox, Secretary Taft and an i unusual number of senators and mem
 bers of the house of representatives. | There was no surprise manifested when promptly on the assembling of the court Justice Harlan began the delivery of the opinion. The fact that he had been i selected for the preparation of the doc ument at once led most people to con- clude that the decision would uphold the Sherman antitrust law and sustain l the contentious of the government. The I justice read his opinion from a printed l copy, which covered thirty pages, and l consumed about an hour and a quarter
 in it's delivery.
 Very soon after Justice Harlan had 1 concluded his presentation of the case I it became evident that the court had divided on tn equestions at issue, and
 as other opinions were announced it | developed thatstEere not only had been
 very close shave for the government, | but that Justice Brewer, who cast his
 vote with the majority, entertained | opinions of his own, which fact render 1 ed the division all the more marked and 1 interesting.
 I While he concurred in the result, Jus tice Brewer announced, in an independ- | ent of his own, that he held the view l that previous antitrust decisions had 1 been more sweeping than was justified. Four of the nine justices Chief Justice | Fuller. and Justices White, Peckham and Holmes-dissented outright Those for the government were Justices liar Ian, Brewer, Brown, McKenna and l Day. The opinions of Justices Harlan l and White were long, while those of | Justices Brewer and Holmes were com I paratively brief All told, the court consumed two hours and three-quarters in disposirg of the case.
 The fact was noted by several per- sons that the argument in the case was
 begun December 14, just three months I previous to the decision For so impor-
 tant case this is considered a very
 brief interim between the arguments and the decision.
 The case decided to-day was brought by the United States against the North ern Securities company, a corporation of New Jersey; the Great Northern
 Railway company, a corporation of Minnesota; the Northern Pacific Rail-
 way company, a corporation of Wiscon-
 sin; James J. Hill, citizen of Minne-
 sota. and William P. Clough, D. Willis
 James, John s. Kennedy, J. Pierpont
 Morgan, Robert Bacon, George F. Bak-
 CT and Daniel Lamont, citizens of New
 York.
 I Its general object was to enforce, as against the defendants, the provisions
 of the statute of July 2, 1890, commonly j known as the antitrust act, and enti-
 tied "An Act to Protect Trade and
 Commerce Against Unlawful Restraint
 and Monopolies"