The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-04-06
Milburn Talks,

the interstate commerce commission in support of the legality of MT. Harriman's s railroad operations. Attorney John G. Mil- burn laid down tho following general proposition.
 1. A restraint of trade to be within the antitrust act must be the direct, imme- diate and necessary effect of the trans action, and not merely an indirect or incl dental result
 2. restraint of trade consequent on a purchase of property in any of its various not within the act.
 3. The purchase must, of course. be real: if a mere device for the suppression of competition, as 1t was held to be in the Northern securities case while 1t may be effective to operate on the legal title as between the parties it Is in fact unsub- stantial and may be dsregarded
 4. Provided the purchase be real and substantial, the motive which induces it cannot affect the result, for any result ant restraint of trade is still ugE' cense- quential and incidratsi 6sl .le Yfst x af air aose46to and an uns5lbted f'sght, tiia, . is the right to acquire. property
 ,. Therefore the purchase by railroad company within it's corporate powers of an interest in another line of railway is not within the act. because the restraint on trade, if any, is not direct but merely jn- cidental to the purchase
 6. If, however the purchase by rail- road company within it's corporate pow CTS, of a line of railway, made to suppress competition, be obnoxious to the act that result does not follow if the purchase be made for a legitimate and proper pur- pose of the purchasing company
 '. In any event a purchase by rail- road company of an interest in a line of railway which Is not parallel and com peting is not within the act.
 8. The purchase by the Union Pacific of its interest in the Southern Pacific was not made to suppress competition, but to protect it's property by an extension of it's line in that way to the Pacific coast.
 9. The Union Pacfic and Southern Pa cific are not parallel or competing lines or systems.
 Outline of Speech.
 This summary proved to be the outline of his entire speech, and he followed its presentation with an elaboration of the propositions giving especial attention to the contention that the purchase of the Southern Pacific by the Union Pacific was d legitimate business transaction and not in any way in contravention of the antitrust laws. He said that if the laws of the state by which the Union Pacific was chartered had prohibited such d pur- chase it could not have been legltimately made, but that in no event could the federal antitrust law be held appica- ble.
 He contended that the main purpose of the purchase had been to gain a through line from Omaha to San Fran cisco, and declared there had been no subterfuge about or hidden moti2e in the deal. It had been a bona fide purchase and could not be criticised as a bus mess transaction from any point of view. Having no purpose of preventing com petition 1t did not fall within the mean ing of the Sherman law.
 He called attention to the fact that MT. Harriman's purchase of Southern Pacific stock, Commissioner Lane sug- gested that the two transactions might indicate the purpose to control competi- ton in trans-continentaI business, but Mir. Milburn said that the record in the case indicated no such purpose, the two transactions being independent and sep arate.
 Reasonable Inference.
 But is it not more reasonable in- ference that the primary purpose was to get control of these great trana-con- tinental lines for the control of rates?' MT. Lane asked.
 MT. Miburn would not consent that any motive had been shown in the pur- chase of Southern Pacific stock except to get the line from ogden to San Francisco. Taking that portion 1t must also take the line from New Orleans and Portland to San Francisco. Moreover, the nego- tlations for the Southern Pacific stock had begun long before an effort was made to obtain Northern Pacific stock. Any other theory is a mere dream" he declared.
 eff 1t is a dream, it Is not the dream of this commission, but of MT. Harri- man's." responded Commissioner Lane. and MT. Milburn turned his attention to the question whether the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific are parallel and competitive.
 He declared they were not.
 In reply to Mir. Clements, Mir. Mi1burn said 1t was his contention that a pur- chase as that made in this case, even though it does not effect restraint of trade, 1t was not controlled by the anti trust act. It was sufficient if there was purchase. He would not, however go to the extent of expressing an opinion as to what should be said in case monopoly is established.
 Milburn Complains.
 MT. Milburn complained of the course of the commission in singling out the liar riman interests for investigation and said he should be pleased to have an inquiry into the subject of community of inter ests. He would have the Pennsylvania, the Vanderbilt, the Northern Pacific. the Rock Island. the Great Northern systems inquired into. for all of these had grown