We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
258
PART XIII.
I
motives. The law is its own measure of right and wrong, of what it permits, or forbids, and the judgment of the courts can not be set up against it in a supposed accommodation of its policy with the good intention of parties, and it may be, of some good results. (United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U. S., 290 ; Armour Packing Company v. United States, 209 U. S., 56, 62.)
(3) United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (226 U. S., 61). Decided December 2, 1912. Opinion by Mr. Justice Day.
The Union Pacific acquired, February, 1901, 37J per cent of the stock of the Southern Pacific, subsequently increased to 46 per cent. The Supreme Court unanimously sustained the contention of the Government that the two railroads were competing systems and that the domination over and control of the Southern Pacific Co. given to the Union Pacific by this purchase of stock brought the transaction within the antitrust act.
In view of the fact that the opinion of the court, hy Mr. Justice Day, contains a very thorough elucidation of the rule of reason " established by the Standard Oil and Tobacco decisions, we quote at some length from his opinion. He said:
(81) In view of the recent consideration of the history and meaning of the act (Standard Oil and Tobacco Cases, 221 U. S., 1 and 106, respectively) it would be superfluous to enter upon any general consideration of its origin and scope. In certain aspects the law has been thorouglily considered and its construction authoritatively settled, and in de