The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1904-03-15
.f1ERGER is
ILLEGAL
Existence Of Northern Securities
Co. Is a Violation Of Sherman
Antitrust Law.

MAS1lNG 1O1Ns hdECu A8s-A1 NuA
United States supreme court yesterday
an opinion was delivered in the merger
ease of the Northern Securities eompa-
ny 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 Mime
sofa In every particular. -Four Of the
justices dissented from the ave const-
outing 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 10 control interstate
commerce, no matter by whom con-
Quoted, while the minority, or dissent
ing opinion, WAS hased on the theory
that in the present case the effort is
10 regulate the ownership OF RAILROAD
stocks by state corporations and that
such ownership is not interstate traf-
&c.
An effort WIS made by the court to
prevent knowledge Of the fact that the
opinion was to loo rendered yesterday
from getting 10 The public, but never
theless il was quite generally under
stood among newspaper men, attor-
neys and others for an hour or so be-
tore the converting of court that the
decision would be- announced When,
therefore, the members of the court
Hled 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 Mt
;Orneys were Attorney General Knox
and Secretary TAN and an unusual
number Of senators and members OF
the house Of representatives. There
was no surprise manifested when
promptly on the assemblies of the
court Justice Harlan hcgan Tho dcliy,
cry of the opinion. The iHG that he
had been selected for jlic pfr,t-ssiOn
Of the document at once lcI tus>i poo
pie 10 conclude that the dcc.s ~ would
uphold the Sherman antitrust law and
sustain the contentious OF the govern
ment The justice read bis opinion
from printed copy which covered
thirty pages and consumed about M
hour and quarter in its delivery
Very soon after Justice HHrlat had
read his presentation OF tie case
it became evident that tic court had
divided on the questions az i>SYc and
as other opinions We're anndoncal ii
developed that there not only had been
n very close shave for the govp:""..' ut,
but that one Of the me '"al% OF the
court who cast his vote with the ma.
j0rity entertained opinions Of his own.
which fact rendered the division all
the more marked and interesting. This
was Justice Brewer. who, While he
concurred In the result. announced in
an independent opinion of his own
that he held the view thai previous
antitrust decisions had hecn more
sweeping than was justified -Four Of
the nine Justices dissentcd outright
These were chief Justice Fuller and
Justices White. Peckhan and Holmes.
The opinions of justices Harlan and
White were long. while hose of JUS
ticcs Brewer and Holmes were COM
parntiyely brief. An told, the court
consumed two hours and three-quar-
ters in diSposing of the case.
The fact was noted 10y several per-
sons that the argument IN the case
was begun Dec Il. just three months
previous 10 the decision. For so i'm
portant n case this is considered very
brief interim between the arguments
and the decision. The case just de-
clded was brought by the United States
against the Northern Securities COM
pany, a corporation of New Jersey;
the Great Northern Railway company,
a corporation of Minnesota the North
ern Pacific Railway company, cor
poration Of Wisconsin; James ]. Hill,
a citizen OF Minnesota. and William
P. ClOugh, d. Willis James, John S.
Kennedy, ]. Plerpont Morgan, Robert
Bacon, George f. Baker and Daniel
Lamont, citizens OF New York
It's general object was to enforce as
against the defendants the provisions
OF the statute OF July .. 1890. COM
monty known as the antitrust act and
entitled IAN act 10 protect trade and
commerce against unlawful restraint
and monOpolles."
Justice Harlan also took occasion to
say that there had been nothing in the
Securities company's certificate of In
corporation TO indicate its purpose to
be that OF destroying commerce. and
he therefore absolved the state of New
Jersey from any charge Of such knowl-
edge In advance. 1t might be true that
a federal court had no power TO dis
solve corporation OF state, but this
circumstance could not he an indica-
tion OF powerleEsness 10 enforce the
'aw than which no corporation Is