Harriman struck back wa plot designed to gain control of Morgans N Pacific

Harriman struck back wa plot designed to gain control

This preview shows page 10 - 12 out of 12 pages.

Harriman struck back w/a plot designed to gain control of Morgan’s N. Pacific → bought 370,000 out of 800,000 shares of N. Pacific’s common stock + preferred stock (carried voting rights) 4. 2 sides broke stalemate w/compromise that elected Harriman & several supporters to the N. Pacific’s governing board 5. Morgan announced creation of a corporation too large to be taken over by anyone ( holding company = corporation that exists only to own stock in other companies) = Northern Securities Company → controlled the N. Pacific, the Great Northern and the Burlington railroads 6. Pres. Teddy Roosevelt ordered an investigation → gov filed a fed suit in St. Paul, MN → charged the company w/violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 B. Legal Steps in the Case 1. Sherman Antitrust Act’s main intent was to forbid illegal combo of businesses that acted in restraint of trade 2. Sherman Act upheld in lower court a) 4 judge fed court found against N. Securities in 1903 → ruled that the railroads were competing companies and to place them under one man would reduce competition 3. Appeal to Supreme Court a) Defense: the merger had not restrained trade b) Prosecution: by combining rail lines N. Securities effectively controlled transportation across a major section of the country 4. Decision a) 1904: Supreme Court reported a 5-4 decision against N. Securities C. Results 1. Govt. had est. its right to regulate business for the common good VII. Do the war powers include the right to lock up citizens who haven’t committed a crime? Korematsu v US) A. Facts of the Case
Image of page 10
1. 1942: Pres. Roosevelt issued an executive order that authorized the creation of military areas 2. Lt. Gen. John DeWitt named the W. Coast to a depth of about 40 mi as Military Area No. 1 B. Legal Steps in the Case 1. Hirabayashi v US (1943): Court upheld curfew → stated that the order was a valid measure intended to prevent acts damaging to the war effort 2. Ex parte Endo (1944): decision stated that an American citizen of Japanese ancestry whose loyalty had been est could not be held in a War Relocation Center 3. Korematsu v US (1944): dealt w/govt’s right to remove citizens of Japanese origin from the W. Coast 4. Lower court conviction a) Korematsu tied/convicted in a fed. court → crime was that he remained in San Leandro, CA in spite of the Civilian Exclusion Order b) Confirmed conviction 5. Legal basis of exclusion questioned a) Defense: argued that the 1942 act that allowed military to evacuate civilians was unconstitutional → claimed that all danger of Japanese invasion vanished by the time the exclusion order was issued 6. Decision a) Court upheld the lower court decision by ruling that removal was necessary → exclusion was a response to a military danger and was not based on racial prejudice C. Results of the Case 1. 1982: a congressional committee revealed that naval intelligence had reported in 1942 that there was no threat of a Japanese investigation → therefore relocation was unnecessary 2. 1983: Congressional Commission on Wartime Relocation and internment of Civilians urged Congress to make a national apology 3.
Image of page 11
Image of page 12

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 12 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes