OCR Text |
Show I : 1 1 . :j ji-: , Declared to Be Ccntba-: : - ;tioa in: Restraint cf ; . !. Trade; Decision of Fed- ' ; ; : cral Court of Appeals i Is Unanimous. -J -:: ; r y- HEW YOSK, April 9. The case of tlia ITortliem Securities company will . ' a - '' 1m appealed..: ' , . . . In the outside market Northern Se- : enritiee, which had sold up to 108 l-8 V ' broke to 103 on receipt of the news . from St PauL - ;.- ... :. : ' ' .. "; ' ST. PAUL. Vinn'AprU .The Unit- ; ; , ed States Circuit Court of Appeals today . at noon. handed down a decision In the . 0 " . suit of the United States against the Northern Securities company, enjoining ' , the company from voting the stock of the Great Northern or Northern Pacific " Railway companies, but allowing the. return of such stock as had been dellv- ered to that holding company. The . . , . . opinion was unanimous, all four Judges ... ; concurring, but the opinion was writ- , ten by J. O. Thayer. : .'.. ;-'.,,' Decree of the Court. ;' ... v , The substance of the order is In the decree, which is as follows: . . V A . decree in favor of the United States ' , ' i wUl accordingly be entered to the to- lowing effect: . a Adjudging that the stock of the Northern , Pacific and Great Northern Rallwsy -companies now held by the Securities-' Securities-' company was acquired in virtue of a combination among the defendants In t restraint of trade and commerce among . the several Btatea, such as the antl-trnsi ' act denounces as-illegal: enjoining the Securities company from acquiring or attempting to acquire . further stock of either of said companies; also enjoins it -,-from voting-such stock at any meeting of the stockholders of either of said, railroad companies or exercising or at- ' tempting to exercise any control, dlree- tion or supervision or influence over the acts: of -said companies, or either of tbem, . by virtue of it holding stock; enjoining --the" Northern Pciuo . and Great Nonhrr companies, respectively, respect-ively, their officers, directors and agent -. from permitting such tock to be voted . by the Northern Securities company or . any of Its agents or attorneys on It behalf at any corporate election for dl-rectors dl-rectors or officers of either of said cons- - pan lea and likewise enjoining them from 'paying any dividends -to the Securities . . ' company on account of said stock, or permitting or suffering the Securities . . company-to exercise any control what- , . ever over the corporate acta of said : companies, or to direct the policy of ' either; and finally permitting the 8e- - ' caritles company to return and transfer, this stock to the stockholders of the Northern Padfle and Great Northern ; .'companies any and all shares of stock of those companies which it may have . received from such stockholders In -exchange for Its own -stock, or to make - . such transfer and assignment to such - . person or persons as are now the hold- -ers and owners of Its stock originally Issued in exchange for the stock of said -companies. ; ;( ( ".. f ; Conclusions Summed Up.!- '.'.".' Circuit Judge Thayer stated the conclusions con-clusions of the court He recites the ' petition which was brought under the . anti-trust act of 1890 and adds that under un-der the act of February it 1903, this , case, being of "general public import- : ance," had been given precedence over others and in every way expedited. It j is declared that under the admissions . - i of the defendants the matters of fact are that the roads were parallel and competing lines; that they bad Jointly r secured control of the Burlington; that In 1901 a holding company had - been formed by large owners of the stock of ' the Northern Pacific and Great North- ' era railways by which new-company , large stock Interests had been acquired at an agreed price, and the court holds that "the scheme which was thus devised de-vised and consummated led Inevitably to the following results; . ." , Operated as a Trust "First it placed the control of-tha, two roads In the hands of a single person, per-son, to-wit, the Securities company, by virtue of its ownership of a. large majority ma-jority of the stock' of both companies; second. It destroyed every motive for competition between two roads engaged, in Interstate traffic which. were natural' competitors for business, by pooling the earnings of the two roads for the com- , mon benefit of the stockholders of both companies; and, according to the familiar fa-miliar rule that every one is presumed, to intend what is the necessary eonse-' quence of his own acts, when done wilfully wil-fully and deliberately, we must conclude con-clude that those who conserved and executed the plan aforesaid Intended among other things to accomplish these objects." . ; . '. Definition of a Trust. On the point whether the present c case comes within the inhibition 'of the . anti-trust act the court -dlscnsees the . ' meaning of the word trust in the act' , and adds that Congress was careful to '; declare-that a combination In any otheri . form,' If In restraint of interstate trade, or commerce, that Is if It directly oc-j ' caaioned or affected such restraint, ,' .;.v should likewise be deemed illegal. ,. ;. v - Moreover, in cases arising under the ' : , - t act it has been held by the highest Ju-v f dicial authority In the Nation, and -its ' - . V' opinion has been reiterated in no un-! I , certain tone, that the act applies to In 1 '- I terstate carriers of freight and passen gers, as well aa to all other persons.; - -natural or artificial; that' the words "in . '- restraint of trade or commerce" do not1 - mean unreasonable 6r partial. restraint ' J ; of trade or commerce, but any direct re '. ; stralnt thereof, V-. V -, .... . '.' : JTew. J ersey Charters. . ; ; V- - J -'-. ' j. -. The organisation of the ' Securities . company, it Is held, "accomplishes the ' . ' - Continued on. page's ' lUil.VV. av . ' (Continued ..'rcra pae L) ." i- object, which'Conrre?s 1 s !?nounced .as illegal, more ...cctu;iy than by other methods.". And continues: . ' "SO far as the New Jersey charter Is concerned, the question broadly stated, which the court has to determine; is whether a charter granted by a State can be used to defeat the will of the national Legislature as expressed in a' law relating to Interstate trade and commerce, in view of which Congress has absolute control. Presumptively at least, no chatter granted by a Stat is intended to have that effect or to be used for such a purpose, and' In the present instance It is clear that' the State of New Jersey did not. intend to grant a charter under cover of which an object denounced by Congress as unlawful, namely, a combination conferring- the power to restrain Interstate commerce might be formed' and maintained. main-tained. . ( Absurd Contentions. The further contentions that the anti-trust law. was not Intended for such combinations as this, that this combination had been consummated before be-fore the bill was filed, and was in reality real-ity in aid of commerce and not to restrain re-strain it, are held to be clearly ' untenable unten-able as to the first point and that the second point is a novel, not to say absurd ab-surd Interpretation of the anti-trust act, and as to the last contention it is said to be possible, but not a matter 1 forMfeclslon of the court. |