New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-03-15

! length and required more than an hour for de-
/ livery. lie based his remarks on what be said
were the principal questions At issue. which
were:
Does the Antitrust az when rightly inter
pretec, apply 10 the acquisition and ownership
/ by the Northern Securities Company Of the
does, had Congress the power 10 regulate or con-
troll such acquisition and ownership?
STOCK OWNERSHIP NOT COMMERCE.
In considering the question of power. he pro-
ceeded on the assumption that the Antitrust
act forhids the acquisition Of a majority Of the
stock OF two competing railroads engaged IN
interstate commerce by a corporation. but he
held that the point at issue really was whether
Congressional supervision extends to the regula-
ton OF the ownership Of stock in railroads.
which IS, he said, not commerce at Nil. lie
dwelt on the necessity for observing this dis
Unction. Does" he went on. "the delegation
Of authority 10 Congress TO regulate commerce
1 among the Statessembrace the power 20 regulate
the ownership Of stock IN State corporations,
/ because such corporations may be n part en-
gagged in interstate commerce? Certainly not
II such question is 70 be governed by the defni-
ton Of commerce as given IN the case OF Glib
/ hons AIT. Ogden"
He then announced his opinion TO be that
stock ownership IN state corporation cannot
] De said 10 be in any sense traffic between the
/ states or Intercourse between them Power to
] control me ownership Of interstate railroads
! he commended. necessarily would embrace their
! organization. Hence s. would result" said the
Justice. that would be I'm the mower az Congress
/ 10 abrogate every such railroad charter granted
J by the State from the beginning II Congress
/ deemed that the rights conferred by such State
charters tended 10 restrain commerce between
the states or 10 create monopoly concerning
/ the same Besides. 81 the principle be acceded
+ I'd" IT must Ia reason be held TO embrace every
4 consolidation 81 State railroads which NAV do
/ an interstate commerce business even though
/ such gonsoidatlon may have been expressly
sutnorized by the laws Of the States creating
/ the corporations.
II also. he argued. would overthrow every
State law forbidding consolidation.
THINKS THE REMEDY WRONG.
Justice White said that the evil sought 10 be
remedied in this case IS the restraint OF inter
state commerce. yet the Decree" he said.
while forhiidlng the use Of stock by the
Northern Securities Company. authorizes its
return TO the alleged conspirators. and does not
restrain them from exercising the control re-
fultIng from the ownership. II the conspiracy
and combination existing was Illegal. my mind
fails TO perceive why it should be left to produce
its fun force and effect in the hands Of the in
/ dividuals 10y whom. Il was charged the con-
/ spiracy was entered into"
He c0utende5 thar ownership by an individual
/ IS equally repuguant 10 the Antitrust act with
/ ownership by a corporation.
After quoting many authorities in support OF
his contention that the acquisition and owner
/ ship OF stock IN competing roads organized IN
/ der State law by several persons or by corpora
lions Is not interstate commerce. and therefore
Is not subject to the control OF Congress- Justice
White said that the cases IN the court are all
consistent IL only the elementary distinction
lyon which they proceeded be not obscured.
that Is the difference which arises from the
power OF Congress TO regulate interstate COM
/ rlerce on the one hand. and its want OF
/ thority. on the other. 20 regulate that which Is
not Interstate commerce. Indeed he added.
the confounding and treating as one things
I which are wholly different is the error per
rneating al the contentious Tor the government
WOULD DESTROY LIBERTY.
Justice White took issue with the proposition
I 81 the government that power OF Congress over
interstate commerce Includes authority 20 regu-
late the inst-unlentaIties OF such commerce and
. 10 regulate the ownership and possession OF
! property u the enjoyment OF such rights would
/ enable those who possess them II they engage
. in interstate commerce 10 exert power over the
/ same. The proposition. ne asserted only states
/ In another form that the right 10 acquire the
/ stock was interstate commerce, and therefore
/ WAS within the authority Of Congress. and IS
] refutcd by the reasons and authorities already
4 advanced that the proposition. II adopted would
extend the power CT Congress % all subjects