The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-12-04
ANOTHER Federal CASE.

Inc FEDERAL supreme court has de-
cided that what has been known as
the Hartman merger i san illegal
combination. and that it must be dis
solved. The essential feature of the
combination, and the one to which en-
ception is taken. is the purchase by
the Union Pacific OF a controlling in
terest in the Southern Pacific road,
these roads being held to be compel
ine lines. The combination is there
fore held to be illegal and Is ordered
dissolved. In handing down the de-
cision Justice Day made a rather sig
niicant statement. He said that
while the court could not compel
competition 1t could reach combina-
tons which made competition impos-
siblc. Evidently he had in mind the
Northern Securities case. which was
decided some eight years ago. In that
case. it will be recalled. the objection
able combination was a corporation
which had been organized for the
purpose Of holding the stock Of the
Great Northern and Northern Pacific
companies. roads paralleling each
other, and which. under separate own
crship. had been active competitors.
The Law forbade the purchase Of n
of these roads by the other. and the
court held that 1t was not lawful to
create an agency for the purpose Of
doing indirectly what the law said
could not he done directly. The COR
poration was ordered dissolved. and
1t was dissolved. The two companies
returned to their condition Of separate
organization, and the result was hail
ed as a great victory for the govern
ment and the people. II the case
was merely a trial OF the wits of the
lawyers or a game for points. the
government did win a victory. 1t Sc
cured from the u h ruling which
it sought. and was sustained on every
material point. But IL the object was
the restoration of competition. the
case might as we'll never have been
started. for. from the ome when
the actual ownership Of the stock Of
the two roads passed into the control
Of the same group of people. neither
under the holding company, nor I'M
der the subsequent separate organ-
ization has there been a vestige Of
competition between the two roads.
The present case does not entirely
parallel that of the Northern Securi-
ties company. In the latter there was
no actual sale of the stock Of one cor
poration to the other corporation. In
the Hartman case there was such a
transfer Of ownership. 1t may be
that there is sufficient difference be-
tween the two cases to give ground
for hope that in the present case there
will be a return to conditions Of act
ual competition. Evidently the court
entertains little hope that such will
be the case. It's opinion seems to be
that there is enough similarity be-
tween the two cases to make 1t prob
able that a return to separate organ
ization will not be followed by actual
competition for trade. If that proves
& he the case the success of the gov
eminent before the court will bring
to the patrons Of the road no relief
from the conditions of monopoly to
which they object. but the result will
simply add one more to the list Of
r. It's which tend to show in what par
t!culars our present laws fall short
of giving the public real control over
their transportation service.