New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-01-09
MERGER ARGUMENTS END.
The Minnesota Suit Noe in the
Hands Of the Supreme Court.

Washington Jan. S.-The argument Of the Min
nesota merger case was closed to-day in the United
States Supreme Court The lrst speaker was George
=. Young. who appeared for the Northern SecuFl-
ties Company. de said that the State Of Minnesota
had failed TO establish q case Tor reIIeI IL the
Minnesota Federal Circuit Court under the fedora!
laws, thus bringing the entire issue within the
statutes Eorbidding railroad consolidation de con-
tended that the Securities Company was purely
financial company. and in no sense d ral4Ioou cor
poratOn. II had M power TO operate railroads,
and had done nothing more than purchase The
stock Of two railway companies lie SAID tndt the
operations OF the company had been confined 10
these functions. ana argued that these trSfc
dd not fall within the scope of the prohibition or
the Minnesota act of 1874 Outlining the provisions
Of that law. he said the consolidation therein
prohibited was authorized by other statutes. lie
also pointed out that while careful inhlbIuoh
had been put ON corporations and their directors,
there was q careful elimination OF all reference 10
stockholders. who he commended were left TO eAer-
else their viii il dispOs.ug Of their property
Moreover whatever were the requirements OF that
law. It had practically been repealed by the law
Of 1851 II that this law prohibited the
ownership Of one railroad 10y a parallel ana com
Ietng line but he argued that this prohibition
could not be extended the Securities Company.
a purely financial Institution. If the law was To
be construed a extending to the Securities Com
paay what 70 stand in the way OF further
extension?
Mr. Young said that the Securities COMPANY
consolidation laws. but only that their intent
should not be construed beyond the actual provi-
so1s 10 meet conditions not contemplated when
the laws we're enacted. Speaking Of the Minnesota
Antitrust act. Nj Young contended that 1t did
apply TO transac tlOns IN railway stock BE-
cause such transactions could have nothing to q"
with restraint OF trade. He also urged that rs
the sale stock OF the railroads TO the Securi
Company had been made outside the State the
law applicable Mr. Young declared thai
the only possible point Of issue as to how
much Of its Great Northern stock the Securi-
ties Company must dispose Of He reached this
conclusion by the argument that II the Securities
Company . \ railroad company at all, il was not
such until It had purchased the stock or the
Northern Pacific road, and the legal prohibition
did not apply TO that purchase. nor did II apply
10 any subsequent purchase Of Great Northern
stock less than a sufficient quantity TO give con
troll. he declared in conclusion that the result OF
the consolidation had been reduction Of rates 10
the extent Of about 10 per cent and saving 10
the State OF about a million dollars.
Mr.. Young followed by John q. Johnson who
also made argument for the Securities Com
pany. lie took up the question Of jurisdiction and
while he argued that the case is properly before
the supreme Court. said he did not desire especial
y press the matter. for To have the thrown
out OF this court would be to send it back TO the
Circuit Court az Appeals and he said re-
terrng TO that courts decision against the Sscurl-
ties Company in the federal proceedings against
that company. We nave no over" rtHlnE desire 10
go 10 mat tribunal, ny Den t,sLt of.'i -,
Trust act is not app,-aos To n" northern seeurt-
ties Company or the Northern Pacific Company. as
both are foreign corporations he closed by assert
ing that there hAC been no restraint OF trade I'm
the uuidcauon OF the TWO roads. and no intention
To restrain trade
Mr.. Mum then made the closing argument He
took up drst the question % jurisdiction. urging
that under the act creating the Circuit Court Of
Appeals jurisdiction must e with this court alone
and that If the could not Doe brought to this
court the State would bee deprived O. all oppor-
tuuity for appeal.
He said in response 70 Nj Young thar Minnesota
made no contention that II could enforce the penal
provision OF the State Antitrust act against an
outside corporation All that is asserted In conuec
ton with that act. - said. Is that "A New-Jers-y
CORPORATION could violate the laws OF Minnesota
in that state. He declared the Northern Securities
Carnuauy q device TO evade the avs %
Minnesota. and - say that the laT Gid not meet
such a case 20 nut q r. the power or wrong
daars 70 evldc any law A legislature could not
far-sa, al emergencies The Securities Company.
Mr. NJ rru declared. had been conceived and born
in iniqurv and II never had been relieved from Il
The issue was not one % valid purchase The only
rrru0se Of the incorporation ~ the company 20
control the railroad lines II was a con-
sDf-arv and must De treated as such
Mt Mum closed by saying that the state OF
Niuuesota ha3- expended millions OF dollars 20 Sc
cure competition in railroad rates and II would BE-
a rrea, hardship 10 It's people 20 have TO part with
that competition