Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1904-03-14
The Northern Securities Case.

Washington, March 1.-The Supreme
Court today handed down its decision in
the case of the Northern Securities Com
pany versus the United States. The
contentious of the Government are up
held aud the merger is declared to be in
violation of the antitrust act Justice
Harlan.read the opinion of the court.
Justice Harlan first explained the ques-
tions at issue, being the enforcement Of
the antitrust act, in which Congress de-
clares illegal contracts or combinations
in restraint OF trade, providing penalties.
"Now what is the case as presented by
the pleadings? Are the defendants prop
erly charged with monopolizing or at
tempting to monopolize trade between
the States? In our opinion" he
said, "the evidence fully sustains the
charge. The Northern Securities Com
pany was organized as the holding cor
poration, or the custodian of more than
nine tenths OF the stock of the Northern
Pacific and three-quarters of the Great
Northern" he said. "Both lines were
held as if held by one ownership.
The holding company dominated the
roads for the exclusive benefit of its
stockholders. 1t became one powerful
corporation so that competition between
the constituent companies might close.
The profits were to be distributed on the
basis of stock held by the Northern Sc
curities Company. The combination is
one in the shape of trust. No scheme
or device could moro thoroughly be a
combination in the form of trust in re-
straint of commerce. 1t is a menace to
and a restraint of the freedom of COM
merce" The contention of the defend
ants that an opinion in its favor would
not be contrary to the spirit of the anti
trust law is negatived. How far may the
courts go in regulating the commerce of
State corporations? If its stockholders
combine to restrain interstate trade, can
they be held in check? The decision
in the joint tariff association. the
Trans-Missouri cases, the Addyston Pipe
Company, and others were quoted to
sustain the governments contention.
ave deem it sufficient to say" con-
tinued Justice Harlan, "that certain
deductions may be drawn from these
decisions. Every contract, combina-
ton or conspiracy which operates in
restraint of trade is unlawful, whether it
be an unreasonable or a reasonable re-
straint. There is no distinction. The
law forbds such combination even
among private manufacturers or dealers.
Congress clearly has the power to
establish rules governing commerce be-
tween the states and with foreign coun-
tries. Free competition is the rule
prescribed. Whatever extinguishes
competition between railroads is made
illegal The natural effect of COMPETE
ton is to increase commerce; to exlin-
guish competition is to restrain COM
merce. 1t need not be shown that the
combination resulted in total suppress
sion of trade; it is unlawful if it tends
to create a monopoly or restrain trade. |
Such tendency alone is against the law.
The liberty of contracts is not impaired |
by the act, which Congress had the au-
thority to enact. These principles" said |
Justice Harlan, "haye been distinctly |
announced in other cases "
He then considered the objections to
the governments contention, raised by |
the argument of the Northern Securities |
Company counsel, and demolished them |
one by one. The objection that the act |
deprived the company of the privilege |
of doing what it might lawfully do, UNI
der State law, was sternly met. In
conclusion Justice Harlan said: "Con-
gress had authority to declare that free
dom of interstate commerce shall not be
disturbed. Court can not disregard |
that authority. The decision of the
court below enjoins the Northern Sc
curities Company from acquiring stock |
in the two companies, from voting what
it holds, from exercising any control |
over either of the roads, or from per-
hitting these things to be DONE"
The decree of the court below is af-
6rmed, with liberty in the execution Of
the decree as circumstances may dictate.
Justice Harlan consumed one hour
in delivering the opinion.
Justice Brewer followed him, concur
ring in the findings of the court, but not
going as far in some of his interpre-
tations ofthe issues at stake.
Justice Holmes dissented from the
opinion of the court and briefly gave his
reasons therefor.
The decision was by vote of FIVE to
four. Justices Holmes, Peckham, White
and Fuller dissenting.
The State of Minnesota against the
Northern Securities Company remains
Undecided, but will no doubt in due
line be dismissed on the ground that the
ederal courts have no jurisdiction.
Today decision really carries the other
,ase with it, although not in stated
erms.