Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1904-03-19
RAILWAY MERGER
DECLARED ILLEGAL
Government Wins in Northern Secur-
tiles Litigation.
VIOLATION OF ANTITRUST LAW

lon 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. TIE opinion of
TIE court was handed down by Jus
uce Harlan, and it upheld the decree
OF tne circuit court for the district OF
minnesota in every particular. Four
or the justices dissented from the five
| constituting the majority.
The division in the court was dine
TO dlherence of opinion as to the
right or federal control of state cor
porations. The majority opinion pro-
ceeded on the theory that congress
has right under the constitution to
control Interstate commerce. no mat
ter by whom conducted, while the mi
norfty or dissenting opinion was based
on the theory that in the present case
the effort is to regulate the ownership
of railroad stocks by state corpora
tons, and that such ownership is not
interstate traffic.
The opinion was read by Justice
Harlan, and was concurred in by .Jus-
tees Brown. Brewer, McKenna and
(. Day, while the chief justice and JUS
tees White. Peckham and Holmes dis
sented.
Justice Harlan said that In the
merger of the Northern Pacific and the
Great Northern Railway companies
the stockholders disappeared and re-
appeared in the Securities Company.
the two thus becoming practically con-
solidated in a holding company, the
principal object being to prevent COM
petition. mo scheme or device could
certainly more effectively come within
the prohibition of the antitrust law.
and it is within the meaning of the
act trust" is the language of the
opinion.
The contentious of the Securities
Company were reviewed, and Justice
Harlan SAID they had received full at
teution. He quoted the various opin-
ions involving the trust question. say
Ing that from them it is to be gathered
that all contracts in restraint of trade
reasonable or unreasonable, are pro-
hibited by the Sherman law. and that
congress has the power to establish
such regulations as are laid down in
tht law. Congress had power to en-
act the statute.
He asserted the power of congress
over Interstate commerce to be as
complete as the power of q state over
domestic commerce.
Owing TO the plea of the railroads
that the antitrust law should be de-
clared unconstitutional, he said that
the court could not see its way to that.
end III, he went on. the Securities
Companys contentious are sound
why may not all the railroads of the
United States enter into a combina
ton, and by the device OF a holding
corporation control rates throughout
the country in defiance of congress?"
Justice Harlan also took occasion To
say that there had been nothing in the
securities Company's certificate of in
corporation to indicate it's purpose TO
be that of destroying commerce. and
ne therefore absolved the state of New
Jersey from any charge of such knowl
edge in advance 1t might be true that
federal court had no power to dis
solve corporation of a state, but this
circumstance could not be an indica-
ton OF powerlessness to enforce the
law, than which mo corporation Is
stronger
No device could suffice to prevent
this enforcement OF the national stat
utes.
Justice Harlan said that In this tlay
there should be no doubt of the com.
piete power OF congress to control In.
ter-state commerce; all appropriate
means might be resorted to for that
purpose. All the prior trust cases were
In support OF that contention. Whether
free ana unrestrained competition was
wise, he said, was an economic uues-
ton with which the court need not
concern Itself; the question was that
of statutory law.
Justice Harlan declared that the
only object or the merger was to pre-
vent competition, and he said that II
no one else Knew this to be the case
j. Pierpont Morgan, one of the defend.
ants, knew that to have been the case
The extracts from Mr.. Morgan's testi.
mony were quoted In support of this
statement
Justice Holmes read the dissentins
opinion. He construed the antitrust
law'as criminal statute and declared
that there was nothing In 1t to tndi-
cate that it had been enacted for the
control of large concerns, as is gener
ally contended. Indeed, the law had nor
been understood as applying to rail
roads until so construed by the su-
preme court. The act, he contepded
applies only to contracts and combina.
tons in restraint of trade and makes !
no reference to competition.
Justice White also read a DISSENTING
opinion, taking up especially the power
of congress to control commerce Re-
ginning with an argument in support
of dissenting opinion, he outlined the
points involved in the case. He re.
ferred TO its importance and called at
tention to the fact that only four
members of the court, one less than
a majority, had united in the opinion
of the court
He then said such principles as are
laid down in that opinion are ode
structive of government, destructive