OCR Text |
Show GHEAT NORTHERN COiCEKBS PURCMSE OF PARALLEL COMPETING LINES IS NOT VIOLATION OF SHERMAN ACT ST. PAUL, March 11. The report of the testimony taken before Frederick G. Ingersoll, special 'examiner in the case of the United States against the , Northern . Securities company . and others has been filed with the clerk of the Federal court . The report comprises four volumes of approximately 500 pages each and much of the testimony has been published from time to time as it was taken. The filing of the report makes public for the first time the proceedings at an Interesting: Inter-esting: session held November 12. 1902, in New York in which the contentions of the Government and the defendant are outlined. The Securities company maintained that its operations are not In violation of the Sherman anti-trust act; that since the passage of that act other rail, way companies have acquired by purchase pur-chase and lease parallel and competing: lines, frequently under legislative sanction; sanc-tion; that these facts have been reported re-ported to the Interstate Commerce commission com-mission and by the commission to Congress; Con-gress; that the universal, popular and legislative construction of the Sherman act has- been that such railway transactions trans-actions are not In violation of the antitrust anti-trust law. The attorneys for the Northern Securities Se-curities company endeavored to secure from the Interstate Commerce commission commis-sion reports on the transactions of seven railway companies concerning: consolidation. consoli-dation. The commission declined to fur nish the reports and the attorneys for the- defendants then asked to be permitted per-mitted to introduce extracts from Poor's manual containing the desired reports. This request was denied. Gen. Richards, for the Government, held that the proposed evidence was irrelevant and Immaterial, saying: "Now the present suit is one brought against the Northern Securities company, com-pany, the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific Railway companies and certain stockholders of these two corporations. The position of the Government Gov-ernment is that in the formation of the Northern . Securities company in the way it was formed, there was a contract con-tract or combination made in restraint ec trade. "In the answer of the defendants It is Insisted that there was no contract or combination made In restraint of such trade. That is a proper defense and I , have no objection to any - testimony tending to sustain it. But it is further urged, on the side of the defense, that if there was a contract or combination made, other railway . companies have been and are guilty of doing substantially substan-tially the same thing. Now is that any defense? " "If other railway companies did in any way enter into contracts or combinations com-binations in restraint of trade among the several States before the passage of the anti-trust act, can it fairly be claimed that the anti-trust act was not intended to apply to such contracts or combination. The Inference is . clearly the other way." |