The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-03-15
Continued on Third Page.)

CONTINUED on Third Page.)
inside and outside the bar. Seated
among the attorneys We're Attorney
General Knox, Secretary Taft and an
unusually large number of senators
and members Of the house. There was
no surprise manifested when Justice
Harlan began the delivery Of the opin-
ion. .. .
Very soon after Justice Harlan had
concluded his presentation Of the case
It became evident that the court had
divided on the question at issue, and,
rs other opinions were announced, it
developed that there had not only
been a very close shave for the gov
eminent, but that one Of the mem
bers OF the court, who cast his vote
with the majority, entertained opin-
ions of his own, which fact rendered
the division all the more marked and
interesting.
.t :. Justice Brewers View. 5ss
This was Justice Brewer, who, while
he concurred in the results, expressed
the opinion that some of the recent
decisions Of the court In antitrust
cases had gone too far, and after
mentioning several of them, he said:
Instead of holding that the anti
trust act included all contracts, rea-
sonable or unreasonable, in restraint
of interstate trade, the ruling should
have been that the contracts there
presented We're in themselves unreal
sonable restraints Of interstate trade
and therefore within the scope Of the
act. - tar=
| Congress did not intend by that
| act to reach and destroy those minor
| contracts in partial restraint of trade
which the long course of decisions at
common law had affirmed were rea-
sonable and ought to be upheld.
| The purpose rather was to add a
statutory prohibition, with prescribed
penalties and remedies to nullify those
contracts which were in direct re-
straint of trade, unreasonable and
against public policy.
Whenever departure from COM
| mon law rules and definitions is
claimed, the purpose to make the de-
parture should be clearly shown.
Such a purpose does not appear and
such departure was not intended
IF 1t appeared that Mr.. Hill was the
owner of a majority Of the stock in
the Great Northern Railway company
he could not, by any act Of congress,
be deprived of the right Of investing
his surplus means in the purchase of
stock Of the, Northern Pacific rail-
way, altho such purchase might tend
to vest in him thru that ownership a
control over both companies. In other
words, the right, which all other ctti-
zens had, Of purchasing Northern Pa
/ cifc stock, could not be denied to
him by congress because Of his own
ership of stock In the Great Northern
company"
| He commended, however, that the
prohibition Of combinations is not al
all inconsistent with the right of an
individual to purchase stock, and he
said that the transfer of stock to the
securities company was a mere Incl
dent.
. State Power Recognized.
He also asserted that there is by
this suit no interference with state
power, and on this point he said:
''It is a recognition rather than 6
disregard of such power. This merg
, ing Of control and destruction Of com
: petition was not authorized but specif1
!. cally prohibited by the state which
, created one Of the railroad companies
. and within whose boundaries the line.
Of both were largely located and much
of their business transacted.
1T has been pointed out that thu
work which these two railroad com
panies were engaged in was largel,
, interstate commerce, a matter owe
which congress has control, and the.
were so situated that they were com
) petitors in that business.
: cit must also be remembered tina
, under present conditions single rail
!. road is, If not a legal; largely a prac
teal monopoly, and the arrangement
: by which the control Of these tw,
competing roads was merged in a sin
gle corporation broadens and extend
such monopoly. cannot look upol
it as other than an unreasonabl
combination in restraint Of interstat
8 commerce-one in conflict with stat
jI law and within the letter and spirit
Of the statute and the power Of con
t gress, and therefore I concur In tn
o Judgment Of affirmance.'
9 All told, the court consumed tw
n hours and three-quarters in disposin
n of the case. The fact was noted b
= several persons that the argument i
d the case was begun Dec. II, just thre
d months previous to the decision.
e For so important a case this Is con
e sidered very brief interim betwee
the arguments and the decision. TIL
# case was brought by the United State
it, against the Northern Securities com
It pany, a corporation Of New Jersey
h the Great Northern Railway compan.