| Show United States T TWins j Wins Suit Circuit Court Hands Down oln Decision In Northern Securities Co Case in I favor of the Government Is Enjoined From front Voting G N or 0 o r N IS P f 1 Railway Stock Sl c St Minn April Apri United States circuit court of appeals today at noon handed down own n a In the lie I suit stilt of the tile United Uno States against the Northern Nort bern hoe company enjoining tIme the company flom ruin voting the stock of or ortha tha the Great circuit Northern or br Northern Pacific Hallway companies but allowing the th of such su h stock toc been Ien el t terea cred ered erea to that lint holding company The opinion was wal unanimous all ni four judges JulS concurring concurrinG but the opinion 01 wax was UH writ written ten by IJ J Q a The Tho substance of ft the tho tiu order Is In tho tilo decree which Is as an as follows Till THU 1 A decree In favor Cor of the United Status States will wi accordingly be entered to tile the effect Adjudging that tho the stock of the tle Northern fluId and Great Northern Hallway Halway companies now no held by the tb Securities company was war 11 acquired In iii n virtue of or a among the hoe de M li ii restraint rp of trade and amul ana com COl te merce among the several states such as 11 the act Ilet let denounce an lS Ills hIie Il gal gil the iou Securities com corn company pany from cool acquiring or attempting to acquire further stock Block of eIther cither of wild said railroad companies also nl o enjoining It i from rm voting such urh stock at nt any meeting of or the thus stockholders of ot either of said soll 61 or exercising exEc or at nt attempting tempting to exercise any control direction tion tiomi tol or supervision or influence over oer tho ho acts of said companies or either el her of I f them item by virtue Irlue of HH its IR holding such stork enjoining the Northern Norther Pacific and an Great On nt Northern orther companies respect respectively ively ivel 11 their thel directors anti Ind agents from coin such stock to tobe tob be bl b voted by the th Northern Securities company or any 11 of Its agents or attorneys ator attorneys nes on ott 01 Its ito Is behalf at tot any an corporate election for directors dh tor or offIcers of t ei cl either ther thel of said sold companies and likewise enjoining them from paying baying any ally divi dividends dentin lendl to tu the tho Securities company on ac nc account count of ot suld 11 stock or permitting or the tho Securities company to ex ox exercise erciso any In control COli cant cal whatever ever r the thc tl corporate acts of void raid ull companies or to lo direct this the polity of either and nna finally permitting erl the thur Securities company to return and Ina trans trace ft for r this tills stork stock tu to the tho stockholders of tilL Northern find Great Northern Norham and nil ni shares of flock of hero Kioto tho companies It I may inny have hu from nuch stockholders In ex cx for Us its Is own stock toek or to make malty malt such transfer nl assignment to such or persons ns tie are ure now nOI the lie hold hobi hol ITS rs and ana of Its s stock originally I In exchange for the stock of or said sall companies s CONCLUSIONS OF 01 counT Circuit Judge stated staled tho time con elusions of the court He lie le recites lbs thi petition which was al brought under th act of UK 1890 and adds that under the tile act not of Feb I lb 11 1 3 this ont one being of general public Importance had hod been given glen precedence over others other and Ind In every CY way ny expedited cX It I U los II de tie declared II dared cIle thud Under miller I the he nf tot th li I i I defendants the matters l of oat fact flot mire are that Hint I Ithe the roads raal were parallel and competing limes I that they th had jointly secured eon con cn tel trul of or the that thai In itt II 1901 01 H a holding company had bath been en formed 1 li large owners of tile the stock stuck of or the tile North Northern Northera era ern Pacific Parle and allt Great Grut Northern rail rAi ays YI by r which new company large 1 shock II ck It Interests had lied been hen acquired At nt an alt ni agreed price and amid the time court cOrt hold holdI that the time scheme Echeme hem which was thus thUD de deIH IH and consummated led Inela I to the Ihl following results First It placed the tue control of the th tr roads In the hands halls of ot single per persons lIeI sons eons on to wit wl the tho Securities company by 1 of UH its Il ownership of n it I large Jure ma majority majority i Jort of the thc stock tok of ot both companIon companies H It I destroyed every ever motive for Cor or competition between two to roads road engaged en ng ed cd 1 In Interstate traffic which were natural competitors for tor or business u bv hi b pooling the earnings s of ot the hue two roads roada for Cl the tile common of the stock Flock stockholders 1 l holders of both bot I companIes and amId nc nr ticS fording to the familiar rule that every everyone eor everyone one rne Is 1 presumed to Intend what In is Ii tl I necessary accessory consequence of his Mi own on arts acts when done wilfully and ana deliberately we lye le must muni U t conclude that those lions who ho con cn conserved served d and ana executed eX tile the plan aforesaid Intended among alon other things thing to accomplish Icom pUsh these object o ANTITRUST ACT ACTOn ACTOn C On the point whether the he present case cafe conIes comes within the lie Inhibition of or the th lie antitrust act art time the court curt discusses the of or the lit word trust tr t In the act and trod muids that hunt was Wf careful to that a combination In any an other form tonn If I In ill restraint of Interstate trade 01 cm commerce hunt IH ha II If It It I directly oc occasioned o occasioned or effected such auch restraint should likewise be e deemed Illegal lell Moreover Ioro In itt pares capes under the thenet net moot ct It lute lins been 1 held heh by the thc highest ju judicial authority In itt the nation and nna In lii II opinion haa itu h been reiterated In no un uncertain Uncertain certain tone lieU tid the act at ae applies apple to 10 In Interstate relate carriers nf ot freight and pas pt p as a well iehl 11 a to lo all al other lr ir wins Fons natural or artificial that the thein words In restraint of o trade or com cola commerce cm merce do not Tuot Ct mean In unreasonable rr or rr partial paUal u restraint a of o uLL trade tre or nr com M vom u a o uLL tre M merce luel et hut direct int restraint t thereof I that an on agreement a between competing tn railroads which requires require them IMm to set art In concert cert In fixing the rate rte for the car cat carriage ringe or of or o r freight over oer their lines lilies In from raIn one state to an in inether ether anti which bv by b that means re 1 h temporarily the right of at any I other othel of ot such carriers to name such urh I notes for or the carriage of such or t rJ oer cier ltd its I road read aa as 1 It I 10 Is Ie II a c contact In restraint of commerce the meant nf tr f the thio tl tort act In that la is II tends to prevent m that thai It ii I matters not whether while acting B under such cuch n a I contract tie tho tm rate fixed In reasonable or o time the he Ire ice of o such contract or being that It I confers the th to cures mt anti 01 restrains commerce hy I placing ol oh In the way a of at fr rr Ne e ennd anti 1 unrestricted competition between carrier who ho art arc Irl naturally rivals for forI I and finally that on lias 2105 the tIme power pO r under the grant of au nu authority contoUred in the federal Con Constitution to regulate commerce to say nay sayat Hat at no contract or combination lull hal I r If gal which hl h shall hal restrain Inter interstate state It t trade trae or commerce by shutting off ni Ule gu op operation of the tile general law of ot it 1 0 1 Under these thew th It I Is also Riso lo Itt that float if it I tile the th stock tock l bet e ii e ei lo Ui Otis one le person with wih Instructions lIon how to tote It I the lie result would have been beena beetta ln a C In tl direct restraint of or Interstate commerce because It I I r to competition The Pit I organization of or the I n It Is held tile the tl J which Congress has his denounced al as Illegal Ier more effectually than hail by b bother other methods and fur fil as aM the tile New Nel Jersey charter chartor IP it l concerned lh the broadly stat nd ad which tl lie hut court linn iuso hi to determine ID 10 I whether r a 1 charter chaiter granted grantell by n a I state con can CO n be I used uC to to defeat the will r C if f th national legislature as na expressed In Inlaw u a law relating to mole and 1111 In iii 11 view of which Congress ioas lm absolute control Presumptively nt itt len 1 II t no charter granted by u a 1 state Is intended to bo be beut to have hac that effect or imd UI ut il for such n a purpose and In the Ihl instance It 1 ID is I clear lint tue state Elute Itule of ot New Jersey Jerle did nut not Intend to lo grant a n charter charier under cover coer of or an al object denounced by y eon 1 ns not ni unlawful namely a I combination con truIng the flue 11 power po e I to lo Inter mate commerce might be b formed and Ind act net maintained because the time enabling Under which the tue Securities company wile 18 or nl el l expressly eXra that throe three or more mure may 11 InS avail al them relva fel of or the Provisions of the act ne lid allot for lawful a n or any nn ur pOo Laws 11 of ot New Now Jersey Jer p I il 78 7 This language Is not merely per perfunctory perfunctory It moans means obviously tint that whatever powers power the saw easy sw nt fit f to they must lilt imP hold hola amid exer clia eisa cl for or the of lawful objects obJect The words oras In question operate therefore as I a limitation upon lon all 11 tho tile powers enumerated In the thus articles of us ls which were svere filed mell by Ly the pio PIO moter mot rot of or Iho tho tiu securities company com iny y so that however howler extensive and compre h nIe these Ilse powers posers pOwers may many seem to be bethe bethe the hue state of ot New Jersey Jere has Mi said you YOI tuot them so 50 ns as l to lo set not at It any lawfully on en enacted JI noted acted by toy II the time Congress of or the United States or any an statute tatule lawfully enacted by liy liny ony stole state wherein you see fit ft to ex ox exercise etches your our powers power Thu contention that whatever 10 to upon tl n Interstate there here m be 1 Is t aint remote r and amid Ind Co be te Con Congress we lot loot ot 1 L by ed incas gress gess i iTh is I not found to bo be 10 well Wel sustain sustained edThe el Time The Th contention that loot If it the existing company IH Is In violation of the anti antitrust ant antitrust trust act then hell that act unduly restricts tile the rights of or the Ihl Individual to lo make contracts and Is 18 Invalid Is II declared to lo lobe toe tobe be e entitled to 10 little lite consideration The court says saI CONSTITUTIONAL VISION The Tue provision of ot the Constitution does not hot as we believe exclude Con Congress green gress from legislating with wih regard to lo contracts of the lie above nature while In InDie Inthe inthe the Die exercise of Its Us constitution right lu to ii peculate n commerce the Oh states I n On n time the tl contrary t we tl think tilak k the he provision I regarding the liberty of ot the citizen U Itt Uto II to some COllIe ore extent limited by the corn com commerce rm merce clause of the hue constitution con anti and all that Hint tho the power of or Congress to regulate interstate commerce tho the right to enact a n law IW prohibiting lie Hit I citizen from entering Into those specific contracts which directly I I mid und not nt merely Indirectly re remotely reo remotely motel Incidentally gild and collaterally regulate to lo a 1 greater or lesser degree commerce among the stales Tho rho further contentions that the lie an antitrust law IW was not nol Intended Intend for tor such I combinations as this title that hint this his corn como combination hud hind been be consummated before beforetime I time the bill bi was filed ted and was wan in reality In aid of ot commerce anti and nut nol to lo restrain It I are arc held hela to 10 be e clearly untenable ns as asto to the first point anti and that tile the second point pint Is I a novel not to say city a absurd In Ill Interpretation II of or the antitrust oct net and Ild Ilda DS an a to tile the last lust contention it Is I said suld to lo lobe toe tobe be e possible but not a I go matter for do de decision elsion cl lon of ot the lie court The decree Is s already given above aboc Circuit Judges Jud e San Sanborn Sanborn born Thayer and hearth the case anti and nil ull nl concurred In the opinion which woe written by b Judge Thayer nail filed in the tile United States circuit court of appeals In this city Tile The defendants are the Northern Se Sc curettes company the Northern Paril Par Parthe the Great Northern Hallway J J huh Hill William illiam P 1 1 I 1 Willis James John S Kennedy J P for Mor Morgan forgan gan gall George Glorge F P Baker Daker and Daniel Lament LamentA A copy of the tile decision In the th North Northern ern din ease which waa wal handed han lIl down at nt noon today wan flied Aled with Ith the Iho clerk of the court In St LouIs cum CASK WILL UK Dl D New York April IrH 9 The case cate of ot the lie t e Northern company compan will be appealed COMMENT ON DECISION New York April of the be lead IMal leadIng Ing counsel in the Northern case eli sold t Aa s 11 yet this th 1 is 18 an nn undigested opinion but Jut from rein the tue hasty I have hae given It 11 I f call your our attention to tIme the closing phrase of or the judges order or er which practically nullifies the whole effect of nf the decision It provides provide that the North Northern Northera ern era company mar may transfer and the of ot the Northern Pacific arid Great Northern Northera railways railway now heM held by Jy it to lo sushi person or tier per persons sons song as ns are arc now und nd owners onera of or original stock In la exchange for the stock cf ot time the said Mid This right of transfer U I 1 vital Ital anti and It seems ms to me inc renders nugatory nUJ tory the maIn conclusion of the court A representatIve n of J 3 P J 1 Morgan 10 o 0 said Mid this the put iut a IL new nl light lighton on the entire matter mailer and would the Ih lawyers of cit the Secure Ufa tl 8 company to work along new lines JP J 1 P I Morgan saId Until I we ice the full text texi of or the decision I shill lIall not cite care to s an 11 opinion on It tt This much In is certain however It will wilt not nol rest where It is II I IThe The of the right of two or or more moire railroads to 10 be operated by a IL holding company will bo be taken up to the UnIted Stales SIMes supreme In court In Instead stead of looking hooking upon U the decision of the thc court today oj IU ft a blow bIOT to rail railroad railroad road enterprise I should ay say that Iho tho reverse I is the case clISe C all the th country It is I anxious to know Its rights In iii thie mist milt ter tel of ot railroad and a 1111 op men want to know Where there they thy The Pite decision today toy Is Just out ojie ow stel closer to a I to decisiOn from tl the Unit tl States Stales supreme court which shall l be final for Or even een If It the Securities corn com puny polIty had loath won ni today the would have appealed i iThe The rho question wan of ot inch Import Importance ance that thai on sit appeal II I wa WU aur no 10 matter who won on thee facts are oar lIr lain 8 hold held by b tue thu Northern company till still ox lit It anti ore are doing a It good business hen railroad men know exactly hiot hit the law aw la is l o 0 bo ho Interpreted lu luwill this the will probably aJI mid rood my to see nee |
