New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-03-15
FOUR MEMBERS DISSENT.
ContInned from hr.t paee-


ard Northern Pacific Railroad companies would
have I'm preventing competition between the
two roads. Justice Holmes said:
II such a remote result o. the exercise Of an
ordinary incident 81 property and personal free
dom Is enough to make that exercise unlawful
there is hardly any transaction concerning com
Hlefce between the States that may not be MADE
a crime by the finding OF a jury or a court
The personal asoendency Of one man may he
such that it would give 10 his advice the effect
of e. command, n he owned but a single share
IN each road. The tendency Of his presence in
me stockholders' meetings might be certain -
prevent competition. and thus his advice. II not
ms mere existence, become a crime.
INTENT OF THE LAW.
Referring TO the popular impression concern
ing the intention OF the Antitrust law. Justice
Holmes said:
There Is material feeling that somehow or
other The statute meant 10 strike at comhina-
lions great enough 10 cause lust anxiety on the
part az those who love their country more than
money, while IL viewed such little ones as ] have
supposed with Just indifference. This notion. it
may be said. somehow brcarnes from the pores
q the act. although il seems TO be con1radicted
in every way by tho words in detail And II has
occurred 10 me that il might be that when A
combination REACHED certain size il might
have attributed TO il more OF the character Of a
monopoly merely by virtue OF It's size than
would De attributed 10 a smaller one. ] am
quite clear that it is only in connection with
InonOpolles that size could play any part.
But my answer has been Indicated already. In
the first place size in the ca Sc OF railroads is an
inevitable incident. and II It were an objection
under the act. the Great Northern and the
Northern Pacific already were too great, and
encountered the law. In the next place. in the
case Of railroads IL is evident that the size Of
the combination Is reached for other ends than
those which would make them monopolies. The
combinations are not formed for the purpose OF
excluding others from the field. Finally. even
a small railroad VIII have the same tendency to
exclude others from its narrow area that great
ones have 90 exclude others from greater one.
G. 10 T1ra al OH 8
wei aS The great The very words Of the act
make such a distinction impossible in this case,
and II has not been attempted IN express terms.
lie did not expect. he said. TO hear 81 contend
I'd that Mr.. Morgan could be sent 10 Jail for
buying in HIS individual capacity shares OF stock
of the two railroad companies. even Il he bought
them both at the same time and got more than
haf OF the stock OF each road. Yet" he said.
unless I am entirely wrong IN my understand
Ing OF what a combination in restraint OF trade
means. then the same monopoly may be attempt
ed and Effected by an individual and is made
equally illegal in the case by Section -
PARTNERSHIP AND COMBINATION.
He discussed at some length the effect Of
partnership, and said that such combination
is not "a contract or combination in restraint OF
trade between the partners unless words were 30
take new meaning for the purpose Of this act.
and he commended that there had been no ref
e-ence TO the suppression Of competition IN the
/ Traus-AIlssouri decision.
"To suppress competition in that way" he
sa-d sis one thing; 10 suppress # by fusion IS
another Continuing IN this line. be said:
The law says nothing about competition and
! only prevents its suppression by contracts or
combinations ia restraint Of trade. and such
contracts or combinations derive their character
/ rs restraining trade from other features than
/ me IMPRESSION OF competition alone