Show Co COWins Wins Its Suit Judge in I U S Circuit Court at St Si Pall Paul Sustains Contention of Defendants and ald Dismisses fBi Bill of Com Complaint plaint of f Minnesota G l r pal S ot Gui of Violating Consolidating COls Lines St SI Paul Aug AlI l Judge Lochren To Today day lay In II the United Status circuit co cort rt handed hande down his decision in II the cat cae 01 ot the statu ot Minnesota the tb Northern company the Northern Norther railway the thu Northern Norther mid Ild James Jamo J Hill 11 as president of ot the tho Northern Norther 9 s company und Individually In which he su the th contention of ft the th defendants und and bill billor or oC complaint of oC the state lie He Hilda that the company com any has h hnot not violated the lato la H the at 01 and Ind com competing lined or O its 1 ownership of oC the II cJ of me Or eat Noi Norther thorn aitU i H WIY He refute tint ale by I the Ihl mate late of uC to tUe company voting volin tile tle stock or th t two o railroad or either of ot them decision affects th penult of ot the In the Ih The circuit coun In 11 no way federal C null the tome defend defendants ants and the same HalO general rl state of or tact facts but was b sd ou a totally total differ on enl t contention of law The federal teteral suit In Which the n lur cur ets WUI beaten was wn prosecution Jr uton fur tot violation of or the Sheman Sherman law passed by the federal The state In which the secure cure llen teR company wins was wan bawd on an allegation that tho defendants d violated acts of at the Minnesota legislature for tor forbidding bidding the consolidation of oC parallel parle and competing linen lne of ot railway The fhe hearing of at the state cult ul wua wu beRun be beKim Run Kim Friday Frida June 5 before Judge Loch Lochren ren In the federal circuit court It I fol toJ followed lowed the submission of or much testimony mony by hath both aide for many mUl months In which Frederick 0 n of oC this city acted OH as referee The fhe IMI ar argument aI lasted five I e days In which At Douglass former Ally AI Oen en H n Wilson WIon and Ally M D Munn spoke for the state and George II I Young M D Grover and C L W Dunn lunn for tor the defendants The cafe cast was submitted Wednesday June 10 An ap appeal peal to the United States supreme court courtIs Is 18 now nol pending In the federal leral suit hlIn n y In I part I defendant the Chet Northern I COl puny Is a Minnesota ota cor corporation which has hal as al slated sate In the th bill bi acquired the Ihl property prOperly right and nd franchises and the management and control of ot various specified railways That hat the defendant the Northern Pa Pacific Ia Hallway Halway company Is 18 a corporation which filed fed It Il lN of at Incorporation In Minnesota and In purchased and acquired all the properties railway lines Ine right of or way lolling stock and nd franchises s of or the eRr ear earlier lier ler Northern Pacific Hallway company and Ind he stated In II the bill bl acquired d dIh I the Ih property right and franchise and I the management and control of ot other specified railway corporation That old ald Great Northern and Northern Pa Pacific companies no nol and for Cor many years own operate and main maintain tain and operate a main line lne of oC rail railway rai way extending tram from the th of or Du St and anI Minneapolis 1 I west westward ward across acro the states of ot Minnesota North Dakota Montana and Washington to 10 Puget sound sund with wih many man brunches alone the route of at ald line lne the two system RAten of or railroads are arc as ns to each cah other parallel und com competing linen of or railroad at al be between beton tween ton cities and towns town reached or trav traversed ered by the th linen of t both of at said sall two to railway which are Duluth St StPaul at Paul Minneapolis Anoka Anoa St St Cloud Kast Jt Orand Forks and sev several e eral erol other towns In the tho of or Minne Minnesota sota that a 1 reasonable degree of ot competition for tor the th between places PO 10 situated on both sold Ild linen of railway has existed In the tho past After Aler reciting the th act ae JUO br Ir the th legislature la lure of or the con consolidation ln of or parallel railroads also th act of ot permitting ono olio company to consolidate lt Ia stork and on with the th stork stock of oC any other roads rodl which might ml ht be t connected and ant together to constitute n a con continuous cn main line with wih or without I branches and calling Attention to the fart that the same Hm statute the Ihl prohibition parallel and Ind competing lima Lochren calls cals attention to the passage X of ot the law Il passed by b th the state In II 1863 1809 forbidding com combinations in II restraint of ot trade Irad or coin mere bt well the state of ot und other ther state 1111 und and ltd I penalties 11 ni 16 then a 1 compete of the proceeding Under conclusions of ot IA the court 1 after lter reviewing u a number of ot supreme court decisions on the h rm n antitrust net let The proper construction of or tho Slier Sher Sherman man antitrust ni far to I ns it I relates to railroad as d from these conditions I of ot the supreme court appears to be Le tills The act frt to railroads nil al mode between railroad com companies for fOl the purpose 1 and having the of competition by fix fixed 1 ed rates ratel or empowering to Ux them and to 10 conform n Corm to them when fixed are alO in 11 of ot trade nd within the provisions of ff tho Hta Ita tute whether tle th rates BO 10 fixed are ao or Im That between manufacturers ers el of at n a commodity respecting rl their of that commodity to be delivered by 1 them outside HID tho state sUte having tho direct effect of ot competition and raisins the Ct cf rf the article to tho Iho r 1 Is also ailo In restraint of ot trade and within the statute That contracts which do not nol directly and affect transportation Or ai 1 rates re not In restraint of ot I trade or within the statute statu Ie even elen though thoU h they may lay remotely and 1111 recty to have some lame probable of ot tet In that tha direction The tate stale antitrust act must hive hlo the th Nm construction In respect to 10 traffic on railroads within the state ta te Neither the Northern company nor lor the Northam Pacific company worn wern parties to I or In their corporate copac capac capacH H ad anything any thin to do with wih the forma ton of the Northern Securities com company COl pan pany nor of an of oC the Ile contracts contract or Proceeding complained of ot In the bill bi The Northern Securities company cor ny Is merely mere an Investor In and owner of ot a n majority of ot the stock of at each of at these two railroad companies It I has his done no noart 10 art and no contract In restrain of o trade or commerce The action acton of ot the Ule defendant Hill in I promoting the formation forma lon of ot the North 11 i company thata 1 U m Wr Mr m purposes PUt that the evidence discloses And Invest ing In Us Is Blocks by the sale Ole to 10 It of ot 1 his stock In the two railroad companies entered Into no contract In restrain of or trade or commerce or affecting of rates more than any ordinary orl nary nar transfer of o railroad stock from Cram one anI erOn to another That my lY Judgment after most care ful CuI consideration eon of or the facts taets the law la applicable thereto as construed by the highest court lends me to the con can conclusion that none of ot the Ihl defendants has violated 1 the Minnesota antitrust art arta a conru lon apparently contrary to 10 that reported by he eminent Judges who ho In thin court recently decided the case rase of or the States v 1 the North Irn rn company compan and who will wi In another elthel court review thU ca e upon appeal and ond has necessarily hesitation and ond ful examination nation nut Hut tho of ot naton litigants and andY my Y own On of o duty ty alike require tnt my own uld d by mv my understanding of author atho expositions of the law Il be b given In all al causes CUOI tried before me meTo m To epitomize this til decision It I 1 Is held that It will wi be b for fol the Interest of ot the Northern Securities company to re restrain strain by competition these Ihra two railroad that by IW coercing or persuading the thet tv t o hoards of ot directors whom It I has IRS the power to elect It I will wi certainly cause them to commit highly penal pell of ot by mitring Into combinations contracts In tn ir of at trade Itlo In violation of the antitrust ort art and henro the Northern Securities S company li II already guilty of these of oC offences fences that have new b n committed or fr thought of ot by Its Is officers or pro promoters I FO o far CRr M appear and nd It II must be li destroyed I am compelled to reject the th any pernon can Ian be b h 1 to have havo committed or to 10 be l purposing and all to commit a highly hl II penal offense merely INI because Itcan It cn lie shown hown that thaI his hll Interest will wl b be thereby Rd d meed n and that he II has the power cither directly bv himself or Indirectly through or coercion llon of ot his hisH hil H to the of or the offense Irre will wi be entered dl the bill hi |