The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1904-01-05
PURCHASE IS REGULAR
Trust Law Does Not Cover the
Transaction.
NOT ACT OF RAILWAYS
Sales of Stock Were Acts of
individuals.

Washington, Jan. 4.-Briefs on behalf of
the appealee of the State of Minnesota
against the. Northern Securities company
and others involving the consolidation of
the ownership of the Northern Pacific
and Great Northern railroads in the Sc
curities company We're fled today IN the
United States supreme court One Of
these was a general Argument in favor
Of the appellees and the other a special
brief in support OF the proposition of the
Securities company only. Both briefs con-
tend for the regularity OF the purchase
of the shares of the railroad companies
by the Securities company and urge that
the Minnesota and the trust law does not
cover the transaction.
The general brief necessarily traverses
much of the same ground covered In the
case of the United States against the
same companies that are involved IN
case. The attorneys review the incidents
OF the connection and say that it was
necessary in order 20 evtend the trade
of the United States to the orient. for the
then said: And as just such a purchase
might have been made by other companies
the Northern Securities company secured
this connection.
1t was stated that Mr.. Morgans first
thought in connection with the Union
Pacific was to protect the Northern Pa
cifc shares and that the connection OF
the two roads was an afterthouSht. Al
first" they say, he had in nina placing
the shares in trust company but this
was soon abandoned. as from its small
capitalization, trust company could be
bought up easier than railroad COM
pany. About month later he completed
the holding company plan which would
add greatly to the protection of the stock
holders of the railroads.
II is contended that the incorporation
of the securities company was perfectly
regular Admitting that the connection
may have to effect Of preventing Compel
ing where the two roads run. the attor-
reys contend: taking all the facts into
consideration it cannot be said that it
VIII be restraint of commerce. The con-
trary is true and proved. Ard all the
facts-all the commerce of the railway
companies-Inust be taken into account
ard not merely the small portion, if any,
that may have been incidentally restrain
ed
They maintain that the consolidation
was not an act OF corporation them
selves. but of The shareholders and say
that the sales of stock thus made by the
shareholders and say that the sales of
stock thus made by the shareholders were
no moro the acts of railways themselves
than other stockholders.
Mr. Clough's brief is devoted 10 a dis
cussion of the bearing of the Montana
antitrust law on the case He says:
This. statue is a plain attempt by a
state to regulate commerce by the states
and foreign countries The legislature
did not proceed upon the theory of
separation of state trade from Interstate
and international trade. This highly
practical law makes no evidence that
the country can adopt it within the juris-
dict.on Of the state. Again. The forbid
den acts must be done within the iuris-
diction of the state. The things ques
toned here have been limited 20 pur
chases made in the state of New York
by q corporation of the state of Wis
consin and others in corporation of
the state of Minnesota
Ifsar