| Show United tinted States t Wins Circuit Court Hands Down Decision In Northern Securities Co Case In Favor of the he Government G Is Enjoined From Voting G 6 N or or N P f Railway Stock Slack St St Paul Minn Mian April Apri The United lt States s circuit court of appeals today at I noon handed down a t decision In the lie suit of ot the United States agaInst the lie Northern Securities company the time company from Crom voting the tho stock of or ortho the lie Client Northern br tr Northern Pacific Hallway companies but allowing tho the return of oC Hitch Huch tool tool lel del V I cred emed to that lint tha holding company The opinion nII was wal all ni four Cour Judges concurring but tho opinion was WIH writ written ten by h J 0 Thayer haer Time Tho he substance of l the order Is In lie tho decree which Is as follows folos TIm THIS n cm E EA A 4 decree In lim 11 favor of ot tho ho UnIted States will wil accordingly bo be entered t to tohmo the hmo following effect that tha the tho stock of ot the tho Northern and amid Great Grent Northern Hallway companies now lion held hell by b the tIme c was WU acquired In II virtue virue of a cOI the time do tl In restraint of ot trade nail com coin commerce commerce merce ce among the ice several ettes such sal gal aw as al time the th antitrust act let denounces as illO JQ enjoining the time Securities com corn company company cornman pany man from fum acquiring or attempting to 0 acquire further furl her Block of ot either cither of ot std said companies II Iso o enjoining It I from voting touch nuch Iu h stock nt ot any meeting ot of the time of ot either elhel of sold paid uni ml r or exercising or at ute tempting to exercise nay any at control tion lon or 01 supervision or over oler tho time nets acts artl of said Mold hl companies or cir either chimer of tiC them by lr virtue of oC Its IJ holding such stock Mock enjoining the Northern Pacific and ami Great Northern companies ics ell t ar tn l 1 agents oge from permitting l iiii such I stock t ci to be voted by h time the th Northern Securities company compan or any nl of oC agents or attorneys leH on Its Is behalf at any corporate election for Cor directors or of ot ei el either elthe timer ther the of oC said sail companies and likewise enjoinIng them tl 1 from paying any Iny divi donds to ii the lie Securities company on ac or account count of oC wild saId lull stock or permitting or sufferIng the Securities company to ex cx any 11 control coat roi whatever vcr ever c r time tho corporate nets acts nes of ot raid rall companies or to direct the polity POll POllot I of ot either ami amiri finally permitting tIme the Securities company to return ant and trans mans f tI r m this hIs stock to the stockholders of ot tin lie Northern Pacific unit and Great rent Northern and ni nil shares jf of tok of ot companies which It tt may have received from ruin such stockholders In tn cx ox chonge for Its Is own on stock or to make such uch transfer and assignment to such sch person or persona us ice are ore now the time hold hobi holders hol ers ems and Int owners s of nf Its lIs Block originally l 1 In imi 11 exchange echang for Cor the time stock of ot said sall companies CONCLUSIONS OF OJ COURT COUItT Circuit Judge Thayer Tha er stated the con I elusions of ot the court curt He lie le recites clos the petition which was brought under unter th thi antitrust act oct of ot and Ind adds hint under the tIme act of ot Feb I b 11 1 1903 I 03 this caw case rw being of oC f general public Importance had hl lit hEln en given precedence over others end ll In every way WiY expedited It I Is de declared dl declared Jare tint that under the admissions of oC th hi defendants the thc matters maters of or fact tar arc nrc nI that thai the roads rodl were parallel parold antI and competing anc lliS that hint they timey had jointly secured liol 1111 of the that In 1901 19 1 H o holding company cOlpany had hail been turmoil formed 1 h b large barge owners of ot the stock of ot tho North Northern orth ern em Pacific and Great Northern Norther rahl rl S by Lw which new le company large tok Interests had limit been Leen acquired at atan atan an nn agreed and acid the court holds that limit the this scheme which was thus thu de and aHI alit consummated led le to the th following results result I First hi It II placed the control of ot thi hl roads In the thim tl hands of ot single per her persons 1111 sons eons I to wit 11 the lit Securities company by h virtue of ot Its ownership of ot ls n a 1 large luge ma mo of ot the stock of both companies f cond It destroyed every motive for tor competition between two roads engaged ed I In interstate which were mere natural competitors for Cor business hI h pooling peeling the earnings of f the time two for fer Or tho time common benefit of the time stock holders of both hoth companies and amid ac ae according cording to the he familiar rule that every everyone evol one come IlI Is presumed to Intend mItad what If Is I t II necessary of or his Iii own acts act done wilfully end antI deliberately nul we wt mUst munt conclude that those who con conserved served zered and executed plan aforesaid Intended among amon other things timings to those object 0 ANTITRUST ACT ACTOn I On 01 the point time he present CHee cese comes COlf within the tue Inhibition of ot th the antitrust act nt time the court urt discusses the of ot time the th word won rust In to time the act nail and adds that lint Congress was WIS cartful Jul to toplar that lint tha a combination In any sin n other form If It In iii II restraint of Interstate trade or commerce comm rC hit is II If IL I It directly oc occasioned 0 o or effected such restraint should likewise e be deemed 11 Illegal Moreover in eases canon nc under the thenet net hot It II hue been held by b the time highest ju authority In the time nation laton and Hi IJ it opinion hiss has ha been n reiterated In no un uncertain certain tone tonI that the act applies to 10 In tn Interstate carriers nf of freight antI and pait PU 1111 as a well as a to nil mill Al other per persons perSons r rons sons ons natural or artificial that the thu word In restraint of o trade or corn cor meree mf do dim dl not mean In iti unreasonable tr fr partial restraint of o trade tre or corn com commerce c merce hut but any direct dIrc restraInt thereof that on between competing railroads which requires them to act alt In concert In fixing the t rate mete rte for tor or the car carriage cr carriage of oC pAt P passengers or freight over their I Inel limits In from one slat stat to in n lf and RII which bv by L that means re me ret r rI t I tilt l Idl U temporarily the right of oC any on t other oilier of ot Much uch carriers to name nm such 1 i isles for t ru ruth the th carriage of ot h freight or Jr IJ over oer Its road d us its It I I kaoe Is fg a I contract In direct t of ot commerce within the meaning of the 01 Pu net act e In that li I tends lends to prevent praest coma com competition COi petition that hat It I mailers not lot whether while acting und under r curb ruch n it contract the lie rate fixed In or the time vice If of o es such contract or being that it I confers th power to 10 rates and directly restrains commerce by hy placing in the Ihl way of oC fr fre freand e ennO nn and unrestricted competition lm llon between n who vimo II naturally natum rivals rival for tor torI I and Rud finally that Coner on sl a line Imn af the lie power fow r under time the th grant of ot nu au In this the federal Con to ci regulate commerce to say cay FY sayat tat at no rio contract or combination shall hal Ir I legal I e I which shall Ihal restrain Inter Interstate tate state trade trae or ar commerce commerce by off f tho the operation Opt ton of ot the general law In I of ot tl lder these th so propositions It Is also alio h hm I Id hi I that lint If IC tin tIme stock block lol hind had been ben entrust e to one person with how t pron to 0 vote rote votE It If the time result would have been besim beena besima a combination In direct restraint of commerce because e It I e to competition rho organization of ot tho tIme Securities l it is I held the tl lit object t which linn hl denounced an cia a Illegal leral more mol effectually than by nimer methods and Int continues JERSKY S 1 tar for a aim the time New Jersey Jor l charter charterIs Is Ii concerned tin time broadly stat tnt nil 01 which tIme the ourt Our lisa has ha to 1 Iq hi whether a chatter granted by a u slut stati con can be I used le tu tl It defeat II feat the thim will wi of ot Hit tiit national legislature an as n expressed In u it I low law relating to trade and amid oUI commerce In Jim view viol of ot which linn hAi absolute control Presumptively nt at leant no charter granted by y u a IB Its II Intended to havo that effect or to 0 be he used for fo such luch a 1 purpose anti and In the time thelI lI ent Instance In lance It t is cleat clear that time the stale Elate of or New Jersey mIld did Ild not Intend Intent to grant Irant a ii 1 charter under cover of ot whirl an aim object denounced by Congress an at af unlawful namely a it combination con conferring ferring the tie power powel to restraining Inter stole stale might be formed Inc maintained bemuse because e the enabling act Under which tIme the Securities company S organized organised or declare that thaI three or I more niome mort persons may la avail them themI chits I of ot lIme provisions of the tho and bl ome n a 1 for tor any ammy an lawful Laws of at New Nol No Jersey Jer oY p I VI HI 7 This rule language Is not merely per perfunctory It I means obviously ly that hint Jor whatever powers Oler the saw Haw Hawf fit f to assume they must monet hold lieU amid ald exer elms for Cor tho the accomplishment of ot lawful objects obJect The Tho words in iii 1 question queston operate therefore as IS a n limitation upon mill all ii time the thep p wora enumerated In the lie articles of ot as its which were Worl ere tiled filed fed by b the pro promoters motors motels of ot the securities company so hat that however extensive he and ant compre COl lIre hon ho the e powers pOwers musty may seem to be bethe time the state of ot New Jersey J has t said you I shall not exercise e them so HO as ns to 10 set sel at Ut any Cn statute lawfully lawful rui an C acted by W the tho Congress of oC the United States or er any an statute lawfully enacted by any ny state elate wherein you see Bee lIt fit to ex cx exercise your OUr powers Thy The contention that lint whatever re me restraint upon UOn Interstate Inter commerce e there Is I Indirect and ald remote r mata moto and not lint ItO to be LB Lm by Con Comi Congress ed cd gross gress ess is i 1 not found Cound to IQ bo Lo well el sustain sustained edThe The contention that lint If It the existing company Is In violation of ot the lie anti antitrust ant antitrust trust net act then that act acl unduly restricts the lie rights right a of oC the Individual to make contracts and In is II Invalid Is declared to tobe tobe be he entitled to little consideration The court says CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION Time Tho provision of ot the time Constitution does not miot as wu we 1 believe beleve exclude Con Coti Congress gress gres from legislating with wih regard to contracts of the time above nature while In Inthe tIme the exercise of Its ls constitutional tight right to regulate commerce among Imon time the states On the time contrary we think the he provision regarding the lie liberty of oC the citizen Is Isto Isto isto to some extent limited 1 by ly the lie tl com commerce cm merce merro clause claus of the tIme constitution con and that tha t tIme the tle power of ot Congress to 0 regulate Interstate commerce s the limo therl right rl hl to enact a law prohibiting the time citizen from Crom entering Into those contracts which directly and tal lull and tint riot ut merely Indirectly re remotely remotely Incidentally and collaterally regulate to a greater or lesser commerce among tho lie slates I I The he further contentions that the time an antItrust law jat was wan not Intended for Cor such combinations as this lint this com coat combination I hi naton had hu been consummated before the hit bill bi was filet filed fed and was In reality In aid of ot commerce and not to restrain It I are arc held hell to 10 be bo clearly untenable as ns asto asto to the tho first point and that hat time the second point IB is If a novel noI not to say city absurd In Interpretation of ot the tIme antitrust act oot and andas ns as ni to the time last contention It Is said to tobe tobe be he possible but not a 1 matter maler for Cor de decision cislon of ot the court The rIme decree deree Is already given above Circuit Judges Caldwell San Han born hor Thayer and heard herll the tho case and nil all ni concurred In the opinion which was wa written by lJ Judge Jude Thayer and Ind filed fell In the United States circuit court of ot appeals In this city cl The defendants are the Northern So Se S eUret R company the Northern Pacific PI Jk the Great Gront Northern Railway J J 1 Hill ll William P 1 I Clough D 1 I Wills Wils James Jamet John S 8 Kennedy J P Mom Mor Morgan gsa gan gln Robert George Gerge F arid and aTI Daniel A copy cop of ot the lie decision In time the N North rth ern pr em cn ease e which was handed down at noon today toIa was rne filed I with Ith the clerk cllrk of oC the tho court In St Louis Loul CASt CASK WILL Wit DB APPEALED Now York April Apri 9 The ia ue ease e of oC the lie Northern Norther company will wi be bo appealed COMMENT CO mET ON New ew York April A III of ot the lead led Ing lug counsel In the thu ease case cae said saidA As A yet et this his Is 18 an nn undigested opinion but it from the hasty halty glance I have given It I call cal your OUr attention to 10 lie thu closing phrase of ot the tie judges es order which practically the he whole elot of ot the decision It I provide that the North Northern ern em Securities company may transfer and amid assign the lie sock of ot the lie Northern Pacific and Oot reat Northern Northen railways now no held hilti he hi by hy it I to such erson lerson or tier per sons sans na as ni are or now holders owners oWner of ot original stuck stock In exchange for Cor the he siok tf tt tt Ih tt lI 1 tt l u l I tl I of ot transfer I II vital 1111 and It seems OD to 0 me renders nugatory time the main conclusion of ot the lie court A r of ot J P 2 Morgan fo 0 the time decision put rIOt a new light lighton on Ott the entire matter would enable the lawyers of ot the Northern Secure ties company to work ork along new lines linea II J P 1 Mornan said Until I 1 pee He e the full text of the time decision I shill shall not lire care to nn on opinion on It This much In Is certain however It will wll not rest where It It Is The question of or the time right of ot two or mole mOIl railroads J to l I be operated by liy a holding hoMing company will 11 b be taken up to th III hi United States Stat u r court In Iti Instead stead of ot looking upon the ii decision d cl loll of ot the tie court cour t today at as a blow blo to o rail rall railroad railroad road read enterprise I should say ay that the reverse reverie Is the ClUe case all Over the country I is anxious to know klow Its In itt the mat tel tor em of oC railroad and stid lId op eu R a men want to know linow where they The derision today tOllay Is lust Jnet one cue o tep closer to 0 a it decision from froll the Suites court which slush shall be final for Cor even If IC time tho com coat company pany had laud won In today the tim th would probably have hav appealed I Time The question quest lou 1011 was wag of ot such mch Import Importance Importance ance once that nn atm appeal II I WM WU U assured no matter who wham won mon ThuM fh forts facts ire are Clr tain ala Roth Holh railroads held by the tIme Northern company cOIll tn Mill ox lit It and are n business |
