The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1904-03-18
GOVERNMENT WINS
IN MERCER CASE
Supreme Court Hands Down a
Sweeping Opinion Against
Hill Railroad Trust,
DONE BY DIVIDED COURT
Majority Opinion by Justice Harlan y
Vigorous in It's Position That the
Combination Was Subject
to the Law.

! Soll o'SS -
cision in the Northern Securities merg-
er ease in favor Of the government.
The opinion was read by Justice
Harlan. 1t a1firms the op!alon or the
! United States circuit court for the DIS
trict of Minnesota. The effect IS to
sustain the contention that the SheF-
man antitrust law applies to railroad
combinations of the character in ques-
ton. ..5
Justice Harlan said that in the merg-
er Of the two roads the stockholders
disappeared and reappeared again III
the securities company, the two thus
becoming practically consolidated IN
the holdings of the company, the prln'
| cipal object being to prevent compet-
ton.
mo scheme or device could certainly
more effectively come within the pro-
hibition Of the antitrust law, and it Is
within tie meaning of the act a trust
Grounds for the Opinion.
Justice Harlan quoted various opin-
ions involving the trust question, say
ing that from them 1t is to be gathered
that all contracts in restraint OF trade,
reasonable or unreasonable, are pro-
! hibited by the Sherman law, and that
congres has power to establish such
regulations as are laid down In that
law. Congress had power to enact the
statute.
The case has attracted universal at
tention and has been regarded by
bench and bar as equal in Importance
with the insular and income tax cases.
The suit was instituted by the United
States against the Northern Securities
company, the Northern Pacific and
Great Northern railroad companies,
and their leading stockholders, for the
purpose of %dissolving the merger of the
two roads, which the United States de-
clared had been created by the creation
of "a holding company, the Securities
company. =
This consultation vas claimed to be in
violation of the Sherman anti-trust law.
and vas in effect q pool created to pro-
mote the interests of both roads at the
expense of the public. The railroads
claimed the transfer of stock of the two
companies to the Securities company
was in the ature of a sale, and per
fectly legitimate. The contentious of
the Securities company We're reviewed
by Justice Harlan, who said they had
received full attention.
How the Court Divided.
The decision was concurred In by
Jus.lces bfoWn, blsNer, MGhenha ana
Lay, wiz Shisi 'uo'iee fulltr ana
oustlces me, Ieekiiam ana homes
olssslltea' Justice brewer coilcufleu IN
TURNING lhe declsloh, u from differ
~ ason ~ tilooe y ne hiaJofits.
Sweeping Conclusions.
Justice Harlan said the contention
that the law is an Interference with the
rights of the individual states hv which
the are Incorporated was not
~ ~ r4 thnsit,. ~ SUI eases ne SAID
He also declared it TO be unnecessarr,
to da+ar,nine tha r;gSt 30 ~ 1900
or railroad stock ~ coll Inc
nor was II true that the r;pht af tba G. -
cnrities cornanv r. own snd l,a'5 -
road Stool, n,as ~ anir - ~ iall-
volvad 'l7N'o u
He asserted hovavar tho NV,
coneress over interstata Gov, no wv "
ha 20 counlata 90 the nolt.an ~ ~
state over don,estic comnerca us
Coming ia the nlea of tho ra,,rooa,
that the anti-tr1st laws sbn,1h ~ ~
clared unconstitutional, he said t.1at
the court could not see it's way to that
end.
II" he went on, 'the Securities COM
pany's contentious are sound, why may
not all the railroads of the United
States enter into a combination, and
by the device of L.olding corporation
control rates throughout the country.
In defiance Of cnngress?"
Justice Harlan took occasion to saw
that there had been nothing in the Sc
curities company's certificate of incor-
poration to indicate its purpose To be
that OF destroying commerce, and he,
,iesslote, aosolVea the state of New
oSlaey ron any chafge OF such knoWl-
euse ~
No Disaster to Be Feared.
Justice Harlan also discussed tho v
dictions Of financial disaster from an
forcement Of the anti-tr,lst law h,,+
DISCOURAGED them. saving thav 800 go
usual under sI,ch circnmstancas go "
need not he realized ''o
He declared tho nn,v ohioo+
merger was to nravant con,natit ~ wy
said If no one else knew this ~ u, ailo
case + piernont Mnrgo "9 ~ Nc me
have been true Eytnants - 70
Morpan,s tasti,nonH 49, ..onl Alr.
s,,nnor+ 20 ttSSii ~, we're quoted in
~ ''..ei eit.
ne ~DissenS'f'g Opinion.
Justice Holmes read the dissenting
opinion. He construed the anti-trust
law as a criminal statute and declared
there was nothing in it to indicate that
it had been enacted merely for the CON