Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-06-29

because they explain the paragraph OF
Saturdays decision to the effect that
''while the Union Pacific was entirely
dcpcndent upon the Southern Pac1hc
for it's connection westward, the South
crn Pacific was not at all dependent
upon the Union Pacific for its connec'
ton eastward" and that, therefore.
'aI facts of this case. considered III
their natural, reasonable and practl'
cal aspect and given their appropriate
relative significance. do not make the
Union Pacific IA substantial competitor
for trans-continental business with the
Southern Pacific in or prior to the
year 1901" In other words there were
considerations peculiar to this case,
and not wholly in line with other oper'
atoms OF that day. which arose from
the Central Pacitic's ownership and
geographical position.
Nevertheless, the fact that this case
like that against Northern securities
presented the general proposition Of
two trans-cOntinental railways brought
under Il single control, makes neces.
sary further examination. The North
ern Securities decision of this circuit
court was based explicitly on the facts
that an overwhelming majority of the
two stocks was acquired. that the
merger of the Northern Pacific and
lGreat Northern destroyed every mo.
tive for competition between two
roads which were natural competitors
for business"-botk of them running
between Minneapolis on the east and
Puget Sound on the west-and that
such Il result was intended by the
authors of the merger, according to
the familiar rule that everyone is pre-
sumed to intend what is the necessary
consequence of his own acts, if done
wlfully and deliberately" In the pres
ent case. however, having presuma-
ably in mind the considerations re-
garding Central Pacific which we have
just set forth, the court finds that des-
truction of every motive for compe-
tition was not the necessary intent of
the Southern Pacific purchase. 1t al
so concludes. fro mthe evidence sub
mitted, that the competition has not
been restrained since 1901. The fact
tnat two of the justices that sat in
the Northern Securities case are still
ON that circuit and concurred in Sat-
urday's decision lends additional in
terest to the courts view of the two
cases.
Judge Hook, in his dissenting opin-
ion of Saturday. holds that the South
ern Pacific merger was restraint of
trade; he states, in rather interest
ing "obiter dictum," that with the
growth and development of govern
ment regulation Of common carriers
in interstate commerce. there is de-
creasing reason for holding them sub
ject to the Sherman antitrust act"
but asserts that this is a question,
not for the courts. but for congress.
1t is doubtful if this conclusion will
meet very wide acceptance at this
time-at least until the working Of
the interstate commissions regulation
is better defined than it is today.
The Southern Pacific case will doubt |
less go to the supreme court. In the
meantime we suggest that some hur
ried reasOners. who are inferring that !
ALL of Harriman's experiments in buy.
ing up other railways on Union Paci !
fic's credit are approved and endorsed !
slowly There was no question of a |
Central Pacific main line connection in /
those exploits. The reckless perform
ances. during 1906 especially, were
no doubt in most cases clearly out of |
the scope of the law of 1890. because
the lines acQuirede were neither par
allel or competing. But they We're
gross offences against the law of
sound finance, and they probably con.
trayened portions of the statue law
Is we'll. If they did not, and if there
were any prospect of the thing being
repeated. the safety both of the CON-
runity at large and of the investment
in particular. would call
FOR legislation which should stop it, |
once for ALL