The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-11-21

| Hill and Morgan and their associates
acquired the control of a majority Of
the voting stock of two competitive
railway companies and by tho means OF
that ownership the power to prevent
them from actually competing. This
| group OF stockholders subsequently
transferred their controlling interest in
| the stock of each OF these companies TO
the Northern Securities company in OK.
| change for its stock, and the supreme
court decided that this transaction con.
stItuted combination in restraint Of
| commerce among the states and af-
| flrmcd decree of this court, which
| enJoincd the continuance OF its opera
| ton.
1.-The defendants and their associa-
! tlon acquired the control of a ma Sjority
| OF the stock Of moro than thirty cor.
poratIons, many of which were po-
tcntlally and NATURALLY competitive; pre-
| vented the competition by means of
tins ownership, and then by tho trans
fer Of the stock of nineteen Of them
to the principal company, the control
and management of all of them If it
was violation of the anti trust act TO
combine tho control of competitive cor
| poratlons In n third, in tho case of the
| Northern Securities company, why was
| 1t not as much violation of it to com
blne the control Of ten or twenty or
| thirty of the corporations in one Of
|
Claims of Defendants.
Tho defendants answer, (D be-
cause these corporations were not com
petltors and had not been since 1879;
| % because the stockholders Of the
principal company were the Joint owner
crs of the stock of the subsidiary com
panies and had the right to convey
their stock in the latter to tho former
IN trust for themselves, and congress
was without power TO restrict their ac-
| QUESTION, their method of holding or
their disposition of their title 60 their
| property or the use Of it; (3) because
TO corporations whose stock was vested
IN holding company from the North
ern Securities company's case were
railway companies which were charged
with the discharge of public duties, the
performance of which was peculiarly
subject TO regulation by the nation and
state, while the corporations whose
stock was vested in the Standard Oil
company were private corporations, and
| (4) because If any restraint of trade
resulted from the trust of 1899, it was
neither direct, Immediate nor substan-
| tial.'
No Ground Left.
The court here finds against the dc.
! PENDANTS on all these propositions Con
timing the opinion says;
1.-The contention that congress has
no power TO restrict acquisition, method
OF holding title, disposition and use OF
property, WAS forcibly urged upon the
| attention OF the courts in many forms
in the case of the Northern Securities
company, but the answer to il was as
1T must he here, that no question of the
mere acquisition or method of holding
or Of disposition of title TO property
was there, or is here in issue, that the
question there was, as it is here. whether
certain method of holding stocks which
control several corporations may be used
TO prevent competition between them
in interstate and international trade
And congress has plena.y and indis-
putable power under the commercial
clause Of the constitution to restrict and
regulate the use of every Instrumental
Ity employed in interstate or interna-
tioDal commerce so far rs it may be
necessary TO do so in order to prevent
the restraint thereof denounced by the
antitrust act Of 1890.
Powers Of Congress.
"The power OF congress TO regulate
interstate and foreign commerce and
the eIertion Of that power manifested
in the antitrust act embrace all per
sons and corporations engaged In such
commerce. The mischief against which
th" law was leveled is not less threat
cnlng from a vast combination of pri- |
waite corporations owning and using in
Interstate and foreign commerce prop.
crty worth hundreds of millions of dol |
lars, than from "A combination of two
railway companies. The act makes no
distinction between them: it excerpts |
neither class and where congress has
made no exception it is not the province
OF the courts TO do so.
"ThG purpose OF the act of July ., |
1890, was to prevent stifling and sub.
stantial restriction Of competition in
Interstate and international commerce
The test under that act Of the legality
Of Il combination or conspiracy is its di- |
rect and necessary effect upon such com
petition, If its necessary effect is but
incidentally or Indirectly To restrict
competition while its chief result is to
foster the trade and increase the bust |
ness of those who make and operate it, |
it IS not vio!ativc of this law
+" But if its necessary effect is 10 |
stiflc or directly and substantially to |
restrict free competition in commerce
among the states or with foreign ua
tions, IL is a combination or conspiracy |
in restraint Of that trndc, and it falls |
under the ban Of the act
And tho power TO restrict compe.
tition in interstate and international |
commerce, vested IN n person or an
association Of persons by contract |
or combination is Indicative Of IFS
character, for it is to the interest of
the parties that such n power should |
he exercised, and the presumption is
that it Will be. In the case under CON
sidcTation it has been exercised and
thereby the principal company has pre-
vented competition between the cor
porations it, controls since 1899.
- In the case under consideration the
combination and conspiracy in re-
straint of trado and its continued exc
cution which have been found TO exist,