The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-03-20
Contemporary Comment
The MERGER Decision and the President

The Merger Decision and the President.
BY majority Of I. yesterday, the
supreme court Of the United States
affirmed the decree of the circuit court
In the merger case. Mr.. Justice Brew
er concurred in the affirmation Of the
decree, while dissenting from the
process of reasoning by which Mr.. JUS
tice Harlan, Mr.. Justice Brown, Mr..
Justice Day and Mr.. Justice McKenna
reached their decision. Four other
members, the chief justice, Mr.. Justice
White, Mr.. Justice Peckham, and
quite contrary to the expectation Of
many observers-Mr. Justice Holmes,
constituted the minority.
Never, therefore, was the supreme trf-
bunal more nearly equally divided in
case of momentous Importance. While
the decision is a majority decision, the
opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, which
will be loosely styled. the majority
opinion, is not really such. 1t is the
minority opinion of four justices; the
extent to which it is a minority opin-
ion can be determined by comparing it
with Mr.. Justice Brewers dissenting
remarks.
Nevertheless, it is the judgment, not
the opinion that counts; and, by what
ever reasoning the judgment may have
been reached, the supreme court by
majority of 1 SuStains the circuit court
in holding that not merely an unrea- :
sonable restraint of interstate COM
merce, but even the possession Of the
power to restrain commerce and to
monopolize trade. constitutes in itself
a violation of the federal antitrust
law. The Northern Securities compa-
ny, therefore, is declared by the SUI
preme judicial authority to be an un-
lawful combination, although 1t has not
restrained interstate commerce in any
manner or particular, and although 1t
has not even intended to restrain inter
state commerce. The mere ownership
Of railroad stocks is declared to be
commerce, and the mere ownership of
stock in railroads engaged in inter
state commerce Is declared to be inter-
state commerce. The decision asserts
the power of the federal government
to exercise punitive supervision over
the form in which the property within
the states shall be held by citizens Of
the states who hold their charters.
None of the refinements or qualifi-
cations Of phraseology in Mr.. Justice
Harlan's opinion is of very great i'm
portance in comparison with the broad
principle here asserted. 1t is a princi-
pie which Mr.. Justice White denounces
as destructive Of human liberty and Of
organized society. Yet it is the prin-
ciple for which President Roosevelt,
with all the power of his administra-
ton, and Attorney General Knox, with
all the subtleties of his corporation
educated intellect, have been steadily
contending ever since Mr.. Roosevelt
announced at Minneapolis, in Septem
Der of 1901, that the time had come for
a change in the attitude of state and
nation toward property; ever since he
took the stump and ranged the country
all the way from Quoddy Head to the
Rio Rajuana, declaiming the crusade
Of change.
The change of attitude is now judi
cially decreed, but it cannot be
change of attitude merely toward one
corporation or one particular set of
property interests. With the law as it
stands, under this decision it becomes
Mr.. Roosevelt's duty to proceed impair
TALLY against every corporation or
combination tending to restrain inter-
state commerce or to monopoliZe trade,
no matter how reasonably, or possess
ing the potentialities Of restraint OF
monopoly. Against whom will the
Hon. Philander G.. Knox be next d.
rected to proceed? Will it be the
Standard Oil company?-New York
Sun.