Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1904-03-17
KNOCKED OUT BY
SUPREME COURT
Northern Securities Combination
Declared Invalid.
HARLAN CALLS 1T A TRUST
Court Holds That the Merging OF
Northern Pacific and Great
Northern Companies Was in
Violation of Law.

Violation of Law.
Washington, March 15.-In the Unit
ed States supreme court Monday an
opinion was delivered in the merger
case of the Northern Securities Co.
versus the United States, in favor OF
the governments contention that the
merger was illegal. The opinion OF
the court was handed down by Justice
Harlan, and it upheld the decree of
the circuit court for the district of Min
nesota in every particular. Four of the
justices dissented from the five consti-
tuting the majority.
The division in the court was due
to a difference of opinion as to the right
of federal control of state corporations.
The majority opinion proceeded on the
theory that congress has a right, under
the constitution, to control interstate
commerce, no matter by whom con-
Quoted, while the minority or dissent
ing opinion was based on the theory
that in the present case the effort to
regulate the ownership is not inter-
state traffic.
Decision Was Expected.
An effort was made by the court to
prevent the knowledge Of the fact that
the opinion was to be renderedMonday
from getting to the public, but never
theless it was quite generally under
stood among newspapermen, attorneys
and others for an hour or SO before the
converting of court Monday that the
decision would be announced. When,
therefore, the members of the court
filed into the chamber at noon, they
were met by an expectant crowd which
filled every seat both inside and out
side the bar. Seated among the attor-
neys were Attorney-General Knox
and Secretary Taft, and an unusual
number of senators and members OF the
house.
There was no surprise manifested
when, promptly On the assembling OF
the court, Justice Harlan began the de-
livery of the opinion. The fact that
he had been selected for the prepare
tion of the document at once led most
people to conclude that the decision
would uphold the Sherman antitrust
law and sustain the contentious Of the
government. The justice read his opin-
ion from a printed copy, which covered
30 pages, and consumed about ar hour
and a quarter in its delivery.
Very DOR after Justice Harlan con-
cluded his presentation of the case ii
became evident that the court had d.
vided OF the questions at issue, and ere
he opinion was announced it developed
that not only had there been a very
close shave for the government, but
that one of the members of the court
who cast his vote for the majority en-
tertained opinions of his own, which
fact rendered the division of all more
marked and interesting. This was
Justice Brewer, who, while he con-
Cured in the result, announced in an
independent opinion of his wi that he
held the view that previous antitrust
decisions had been more sweeping than
was justified.
Four of the nine justices dissented
outright. These were Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices White, Peckham
and Holmes. The opinions of Justices
Harlan and White were long, while
those of Justice Brewer and Holmes
we're comparatively brief. All told, the
court consumed two hours and three
quarters in d~isposing Of the case. The
fact was noted by several persons that
the argument in the case was begun
December IA, just three months pre-
vious to the decision. For SO important
a case this is considered a very brief
interim between the arguments and
the decision.
History of the Case.
The case decided Monday was
brought by the United States against
the Northern Securities Co., a corpora
ton of New Jersey; the Great North
ern Railway Co., a corporation of Min
nesota; the Northern Pacific Railway
Co., a corporation of Wisconsin; James
J. Hill, q citizen Of Minnesota, and
William P. Clough, D. Willis James,
John s. Kennedy, J. Pierpont Morgan,
Robert Bacon, George F. Baker and
Daniel Lamont, citizens of New York.
Its general object was to enforce, as
against the defendants, the provisions
of the statute of July 2, 1890, common
ly known as the antitrust act, and en-
titled "An act to protect trade and COM
MERGE against unlawful restraint and
monopolies."
Hartman Refuses to Talk
New York, March 15.-E. H. Har-
riman said: 81 must digest the opinion