holders of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railway corporations, . . combined and conceived the scheme of organizing a corporation under the laws of New Jersey which should hold the shares of the stock of the constituent companies; .. that pursuant to such combination the Northern Securities Company was organized as the holding corporation... and under that scheme such holding corporation has become. the holder... of more than nine tenths of the stock of the Northern Pacific, and more than three fourths of the stock of the Great Northern,.. The stockholders of these two competing companies disappeared, as such, for the moment, but immediately reappeared as stockholders of the holding company, which was thereafter to guard the interests of both sets of stockholders as a unit, and to manage, or cause to be managed, both lines of railroad as if held in one ownership... Those who were stockholders of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific and became stockholders in the holding company are now interested in preventing all competition between the two lines, and, as owners of stock or of certificates of stock in the holding company, they will see to it that no competition is tolerated... No scheme or device could more certainly come within the words of the act, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise... in restraint of commerce among the several states or with foreign nations," or could more effectively and certainly suppress free competition between the constituent companies. This combination is, within the meaning of the act, a trust; but if not, it is a combination in restraint of interstate and international commerce; and that is enough to bring it under the condemnation of the act... That... the act of Congress known as the anti-trust act... does embrace and declare to be illegal every contract, combination, or conspiracy, in whatever form, of whatever nature, and whoever may be parties to it, which directly or necessarily operates in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states or with foreign nations; That the act is not limited to restraints of... trade... that are unreasonable in their nature, but embraces all direct restraints imposed by any combination, conspiracy, or monopoly upon such trade or com merce; That railroad carriers engaged in interstate or international trade or commerce are embraced by the act; That every combination or conspiracy which would extinguish competition between otherwise competing railroads engaged in interstate trade or commerce, and which would in that way restrain such trade or commerce, is made illegal by the act; That the natural effect of competition is to increase commerce, and an agreement whose direct effect is to prevent this play of competition restrains instead of promoting trade and commerce; ... and, That under its power to regulate commerce among the several states and with foreign nations, Congress had authority to enact the statute in question. What the government particularly complains of indeed, all that it complains of here is the existence of a combination among the stockholders of competing railroad companies which, in violation of the act of Congress, restrains interstate and international commerce through the agency of a common corporate trustee, designated to act for both companies in repressing free competition between them. Independently of any question of the mere ownership of stock or of the organization of a state corporation, can it in reason be said that such a combination is not embraced by the very terms of the anti-trust act? May not Congress declare that combination to be illegal? .. ... If a state may strike down combinations that restrain its domestic commerce by destroying free competition among those engaged in such commerce, what power, except that of Congress, is competent to protect the freedom of interstate and international commerce when assailed by a combination that restrains such commerce by stifling competition among those engaged in it? Now, the court is asked to adjudge that, if held to embrace the case before us, the anti-trust act is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. In this view we are unable to concur. The contention of the defendants could not be sustained without, in effect, overruling the prior decisions of this court as to the scope and validity of the anti trust act... It was said in argument that the circumstances under which the Northern Securities Company obtained the stock of the constituent companies imported simply an investment in the stock of other corporations, a purchase of that stock; which investment or purchase, it is contended, was not forbidden by the charter of the company, and could not be made illegal by any act of Congress. This view is wholly fallacious, and does not comport with the actual transaction. There was no actual investment, in any substantial sense, by the Northern Securities Company in the stock of the two constituent companies... However that company may have acquired for itself any stock in the Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railway Companies, no matter how it obtained the means to do so, all the stock it held or acquired in the constituent companies was acquired and held to be used in suppressing competition between those companies. It came into existence only for that purpose... By the decree in the circuit court it was found and adjudged that the defendants had entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, such as the act of Congress denounced as illegal; .. It was therefore decreed as follows: "That the Northern Securities Company,.. be and they are hereby enjoined from acquiring, or attempting to acquire, further stock of either of the aforesaid railway companies; that the Northern Securities Company be enjoined from voting the aforesaid stock which it now holds or may acquire,.. and from exercising or attempting to exercise any control, direction, supervision, or influence whatsoever over the acts and doings of said railways companies, or either of them, by virtue of its holding such stock therein; that the Northern Pacific Railway Company and the Great Northern Railway Company,.. be and they are hereby respectively and collectively enjoined from permitting the stock aforesaid to be voted by the Northern Securities Company... at any corporate election for directors or officers of either of the aforesaid railway companies; that they,.. be likewise enjoined and respectively restrained from paying any dividends to the Northern Securities Company on account of stock in either of the aforesaid railway companies, .. and that the aforesaid railway companies, . . be enjoined from permitting or suffering the Northern Securities Company... to exercise any control whatsoever over the corporate acts of either of the aforesaid railway companies... ... it is manifest that if the anti-trust act is held not to embrace a case such as is now before us, the plain intention of the legislative branch of the government will be defeated. If Congress has not, by the words used in the act, described this and like cases, it would, we apprehend, be impossible to find words that would describe them... 1904] Roosevelt's Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine 665 The judgment of the court is that the decree below be and hereby is affirmed, with liberty to the Circuit Court to proceed in the execution of its decree as the circumstances may require. Affirmed. 234. ROOSEVELT'S COROLLARY TO THE MONROE DOCTRINE In his annual message of December 6, 1904, President Roosevelt laid down the following enlarged statement of the policy of the United States under the Monroe Doctrine. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1904, pp. XLI-XLVIII. Washington, 1905. IT is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as regards the other nations of the Western Hemisphere save such as are for their welfare. All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power. If every country washed by the Caribbean Sea would show the progress in stable and just civilization which with the aid of the Platt amendment Cuba has shown since our troops left the island, and which so many of the republics in both Americas are constantly and brilliantly showing, all question of interference by this Nation with their affairs would be at an end. Our interests and those of our southern neighbors are in reality identical. They have great natural riches, and if within their borders the reign of law and justice obtains, prosperity is sure to come to them. While they thus obey the primary laws of civilized society they may rest assured that they will be treated by us in a spirit of cordial and helpful sympathy. We would interfere with them only in the last resort, and then only if it became evident that their inability or unwillingness to do justice at home and abroad had violated the rights of the United States or had invited foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations. It is a mere truism to say that every nation, whether in America or anywhere else, which desires to maintain its freedom, its independence, must ultimately realize that the right of such independence can not be separated from the responsibility of making good use of it. THE WHITE HOUSE, THEODORE ROOSEVELT. 235. RETURN OF EXCESS INDEMNITY TO CHINA Foreign Relations of the United States, 1907, Part 1, pp. 174176. Washington, 1910. The Secretary of State to the Chinese Minister. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: After the rescue of the foreign legations in Peking during the Boxer troubles of 1900, the note of the powers to China prescribing the conditions upon which the occupation of Peking and the Province of Chihli would be ended, dated December 22, 1900, required in its sixth article the payment of "equitable indemnities for governments, .. and private individuals, as well as for Chinese who have suffered during the late events in person or in property in consequence of their being in the service of foreigners." The final protocol under which the troops were withdrawn,.. fixed the amount of this indemnity at $450,000,000 Haikwan taels, equivalent in round numbers to $333,000,000 United States gold... The share of this indemnity allotted to the United States was $24,440,778.81, and on account of the principal and interest of that sum China has paid to the United States, down to and including the 1st day of June, 1907, the sum of $6,010,931.91. It was from the first the intention of this Government at the proper time, when all claims should have been presented and all expenses should have been ascertained as fully as possible, to revise the estimate and account against which these payments were to be made, and, as |