The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-03-15
JAMES J. HILLS MERGER
IS DECLARED ILLEGAL
BY BYTHESUPREAE COURT
Decree Of Circuit Court for District
of Minnesota Is Upheld
on Every Point.
RULING NOT UNANIMOUS
Four Members of the Tribunal, In
cluding the Chief Justice,
Dissent.
OPINION OF MAJORITY
Maintains that Congress Has the
Right to Control Interstate
Commerce.
RULING NOT UNANIMOU,
OPINION OF MAJORITY

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 governments
contention that the merger was illegal.
The opinion of the court was handed down
by Justice Harlan and 1t upheld the de-
cree of the Circuit Court for the district
of Minnesota in every particular. Four OF
the justices dissented from the hve con-
stituting the majority.
The division in the court was due TO
difference of opinion TO the right OF
federal control of state corporations. The
majority opinion proceeded the theory
that Congress has right under the Con-
stitution TO control interstate commerce,
no matter by whom conducted, while the
minority or dissenting opinion was based
on the theory that i'm the present case the
effort is to regulate the owership of rail-
road stocks by state corporations and that
such owership is not interstate traffic.
An effort was made by the court 10 pre-
vent knowledge of the fact that the opin-
ion was to be rendered to-day from get
ting to the public but nevertheless it was
quite generally understood among news
paper men. attorneys and others for an
hour so before convening of court to-
day that the decision would be announced.
When, therefore. the members of the court
filed into the chamber at noon they We're
met by an expectant crowd. which filled
every seat both inside and outside the bar.
Seated amcng the attorneys was Attorney
General Knox and Secretary Taft and an
unusual number of senators and members
of the House. There was no surprise mani
tested when, promptly on the assembling OF
the court, Justice Harlan began the deliv
cry of the opinion. The fact that he had
been selected for the preparation OF the
document at once led most people to con-
clude that the decision would uphold the
Sherman antitrust law and sustain the
contentious of the government. The justice
read his opinion from a printed copy. which
covered thirty pages. and consumed about
hour and quarter I'm its delivery.
CLOSE SHAVE.
Very soon after Justice Harlan had con-
cluded his presentation of the case IL be-
came evident that the court had divided on
the questions at issue. and. as other opin-
ions were announced. IL developed that
there not only had been very close shave
for the government. but that one OF the
members of the court who cast his vote
with the majority entertained opinions Of
his own, which fact rendered the division
all the more marked and interesting This
was Justice Brewer, who. while he con-
Cured in the result, announced I'm an inde-
pendent opinion of his own that he held
the view that previous antitrust decisions
had been more sweeping than was justified.
Four of the nine justices dissented out
right. These were Chief Justice Fuller and
Justices White. Peckham and Holmes. The
opinions of Justices Harlan and White were
long, while those of Justices Brewer and
Holmes were comparatively brief. All told.
the court consumed two hours and three
quarters in disposing of the case.
The fac: was noted by several persons
that the argument in the case was begun
decision. For so important a case this il
considered very brief interim between tho
arguments and the decision. The case de-
cided to-day was brought by the United
States against the Northern Securities Com
pany, a corporation Of New Jersey: the
Great Northern Railway Company. a corr
poration of Minnesota; the Northern Pacific
consin; James j. Hill. citizen of Minne-
sota and William p. Clough, u. Willis
James John S. Kennedy. j. Pierpont Nor
gan. Robert Bacon. George +. Baker and
Daniel Lamont, citizens of New York.
Its general object was TO enforce. "a
against the defendants. the provisions OF
the statute of July 2. 1890. commonly known
as the antitrust act. and entitled An act
10 protect trade and commerce against un-
Ia wful restraint and monopolies."