The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-12-20
The Fruitful Source Of Expensive
Litigation to Shippers and 81
Packers.
How the big Three" Regalned an
Advantage Lost by
$ s Sale. iEy b y S
Allegations or Gollusion to HOodwinle d
New Jersey Court and Isstnbtish
S5 Monopoly. ;.} s i53 T

NEW YORK, SD6c.$ IL. $3----5 Inc Oia Union
5Stockyards company. OF Chicago, was
bought out early III 1890 BY English pro-
motors knownas the City Of London cor
porntion, that company purchasing 13o, 900
shnres OF stock, aggregating $l3000,000 par
value, paying for them something in excess
of par. The company was then re-organ-
lied under the laws of New Jersey, having
q capital stock and outstanding mortgage
bonds aRgreRating 1928, 100000. Since then
Lid has been ID much trouble. The Iublic
subscribed very sparingly, it is said, and
the underwriters were loaded with the se-
curities. Armour, Swift and Morris, known
as the .'lsig Three were heavy holders Of
the stock Of the old company. and sold out to
the English syndicate at $15O8per share.
No sooner was the new company an accom-
plished fact than the Big Three, being no;
longer Interested in dividends, awoke to the
fact that they were paying excessive rates
for trackage, yardage. feed etc. In5conss-
quence they bought 1000 acres Of land ct
lolleston, Ind, and announced that they
proposed to move to that point. Further
more, they purchased three acres contiRu-
ous TO their packing houses in Chicago and
shortly after filed suit there to compel the
stock yards com pany to permit to be de-
livered over it'd tracks direct live stock con-
signed to them without handling By the
stockyards company. This was done with
view Of avoiding paying yaraage, etc. \. \.
The New Jersey company, with S23,OO0,-
600 liabilities, found itselfin the dilemma
of losing the Big Three'a business or di-
viding with them part of the income. The
latter course was pursued and the company
made contract with the Big Three by
which, in effect, the latter decided its stock
yards company their three acres at the
yards, said to be worth $4,000; 1000 acres
at Tolleston, said to have cost $100 900; dis
missed their suits and continued business
at the old yards For all this the New
Jersey company agreed to pay $3,0O0,O00,
partly in cash and psrtly in bunds.
No sooner was this agreement made TIM n
Mr.. Ellerman, Of london, q stockhol der 4 n
the company, 6led a bill against the New
9Jessey company and the Big Ehree, for5t the
,purpos, of having the contract declared il-
legal. The vice chancellor in New Jersey
Yesterday decided in favor of the legality
OF the contract. To-day fou rteen lew suits
|swere instituted, some in the United States
courts and others IN the New Jersey courts.
The new plaintiffs include all the packers
business is said to aggregate over $l00, 900, 4
900 annually. Application for an Injunction
to prevent the carrying out Of the S3 O00, ,00o
contract was made to chancellor McGill
Of New Jersey, this morning, and at noon
to-day he entered an enjoining order re-
straininR tho parties 70 the contract from
consummating it. The injunction was
served on the New jersey company at
once. The new suits make startling allega.-
tions. They allege that the Elletman suit
was collusive and filed by ono in close bus
mess relations with the London contract
corporation; that it was brought really
to have the contract sustained m :
that it was ingeniously devised
to suppress the truth; that the 5000 600
contract is a mere illegal device to create q
prohibitive Discrimination contrary to the
express statutes OF Illinois, New JERSEY and
the United States. The New Jersey com
pany is vigorously attacked as being trust
and combination and an unlawful corpo-
ration, organized to deal in the stock of
another company, q practice frowned uron
in recent trust decisions Of various courts