The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1904-03-18

against their exacn3ns? The argument
In behalf OF the defendants necessarily
leads to such results. and places Con-
gress. although invested by the peo-
pie OF the United States with full
authority to regulate interstate and
international commerce, In a condition
OF utter helpleSsness, SC far as the
protection of the pnolic against sucn
combinations Ire concerned
Coming again TO the consideration
of the contention that interference by
the Federal Government with the af-
fairs Of a State corporation will pre-
vent the securities conf n from ex-
ercising its functions and will be an
invasion of the rights o. he State UNI
der which the company was charter
ed, Justice Harlan said
Every corporation created by a
State is necessarily subject &c the SUI
preme law Of the laid. II would be
extraordinary if the court, in execut-
ing the act of ass. could not lay
hands upon the securities company
and prevent ii from DONG that which.
II done, will defeat the act of Con-
gress. The afirmance OF the judg-
ment below will only mean that no
combination, however powerful, is
ronge than the law or will be per-
mitted to avail itself OF the pretext
that to prevent it doing that which.
If DONE, would defeat a legal enact
ment of Congress ID attack the
reserved rights o. The states 1t
would mean that no device in eva
sion of it's provisions. however skill
fully such device is contrived, and no
combination by whomsoever formed.
is beyond the reach OF the supreme
law Of the land. If such device or
combination by its operation directly
restraints commerce among the States
or with foreign nations in violation
OF the act Of Congress"
Effect on the Financial World.
Discussing the question as to the
effect of the antitrust act upon finan-
cial interests, Justice Harlan said
the prediction had been made that
disaster to business and widespread
financial ruin would follow the exc
cution of it's provisions, and he added
tina such predictions lad been made
IN connection with oil preceding cases
under that act, but" he said, they
nave not been verified" He said the
court has no function to supervise
legislation from the standpoint OF
wisdom or policy.
Justice Harlan set aside as falla-
cious the argument thai the acquisi-
ton of stock by tn Northern Securi-
ties was in the nature of an
investment saying that there had been
no actual investment in any sub
stantial sense. In this connection ne
referred to Mr.. Morgan as authority
for the statement hat the stock had
been transferred to the securities
merely for the purpose or
suppressing competition, and quoted
the testimony of Mr.. Morgan, in which
he had said that the SCI urities COM
pany had been created a custodian,
because it had no other alliances.
This" said Justice Harlan, dis
closed the actual nature or the trans
action. which was only to organize
the securities company as a holding
in whose narGs. not az 4
purchaser or absolute owner. but SIM
ply as custodian, were to be placed
the stocks of the constituent com
panies"
Coming to the conclusion of his
opinion, Justice Harlan said: The
Judgment Of the court is that the de-
cree below be and hereby is affirmed,
with liberty to the circuit court to
proceed in the execution of its decree
as the circumstances may require
The Concurring Justices.
Justices Brewer, Brown, McKenna
and Day ]concurred III this opinion and
they, with Justice lJarlin, constituting
O. majority of the court, made 1t the
opinion of the court.
Justice Brewers Opinion.
Justice Brewer, however, did not
accept the reasoning of Justice Har-
Ian in all it's details and therefore
delivered a brief opinion of his own.
He EXPRESSED the opinion that some OF
the recent decisions Of the court in
antitrust cases had sor= too far, and
after mentioning sEvcra! OF them
said:
Instead of holding that the anti
trust act included all contracts, rea-
sonable or able, in restraint
of interstate trade, the ruling should
have been that the contracts there re-
sented were in themselves unreaSon-
able restraints IF interstate trade, and
therefore within the s-Cbe of the act"
Justice Brewer, however, regarded
the merger as an unreasonable combi-
nation in restraint of Interstate COM
merce and so c]oncurrei in h judg-
ment Of affirmance.
The Dissenting Justices.
The dissenting Justices, including
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices
White, Peckham and Holmes, present
ed two opinions giving their reasons
for not agreeing with the majority
of the court in the decision reached
The first of these Vas delivered by
Justice Holmes, and the second by
Justice White.
Justice Holmes construes the anti
trust law as a criminal statute. Logi-
cally construed, he said today's decision
should be followed by the criminal
prosecution Of the parties at interest
in his case, yet he did not expect 70
hear it maintained that "Mr. Morgan
could be sent to prison for buying as
many shares as he liked of the Great
Northern and Northern Pacific, even
if he bought both at the same time and
got more than half the stock of each
road"
Justice White based his opinion upon
what he said were the two principal
questions at issue, which were, Q
the antitrust act. when rightly inter
preted. apply to the acquisition n
ownership by the Northern Securities
Company of the stock in the two rail-
roads,. and. second. if it does, had Con-
gress the power to regulate or control
such acquisition and ownership"
Justice White said he conceded to the