The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1893-07-05
THE HILL BLOWOUT
MOTIVES THAT MOVE A MOGUL
A Correspondent Gives his Inn
preston of the "True In.
wardneSS'' of the Guilful
Great NOrtherner.
BY JOHN H. BURKE.

The unWrlUUoQ history VI Uuc az
QUESTION by Hill, Kittson, Smith, ct
al of the lines of the Manitoba is re-
plete with interest, much of which
however is rumor, and if true not
very savory. No attempt will be
made to state where or how the
funds were acquired to purchase the
road, though the writer is not unfa-
miliar with the version of the same.
We shall content ourselves with
statement of the alleged facts
as found in the case of Jesse P.
Farley VS.. James J. Hill, Norman w.
KittsOn and the Manitoba, to be
found in McCrary, U. S. Report 139.
From statement of the case on
page 139 it seems "Farley was Re-
ceiver of the St. Paul and Pacific and
entered into contract with Kittson
and Hill whereby they were to &C
quire the outstanding bonds for the
purpose of acquiring the road at
foreclosure sale, and later sold to
Kittson, Hill, Smith, and Stevens.
Farley furnished no money, but gave
information; also aid and assistance
in securing the bonds-but not being
known in the transaction save to
Kittson and Hill.
To the bill brought by Farley, Hill
brought up plea in bar, setting up
these facts and that Farley was not
entitled to any relief" which plea
practically admits, in law, the facts
charged.
On the day following the Hill cele-
bration the papers of St. Paul spoke
of James J. Hill undertaking to Sc
cure these bonds from the Amster-
dam holders. hence this decision is
peculiarly apropos; especially as the
court in speaking of Farley, at p. 143,
says: "The plaintiff conceived a
scheme to wreck the vast interest
which it was his duty to protect"
hence it were we'll to consider wheth-
er part of'this scheme was to so run
the road in debt as to ruin it's credit
and business and thus scare out or
freeze out the timid holders.
The case was heard before Judges
Treat and Nelson, and the following
decision rendered. The decision will
be given verbatim, save words in
brackets which are our own-and the
connected facts as stated in the
opinion will be given-simply calling
attention to foreign matter therein
to he found in the proper notes at
END hereof.
The decision is as follows:
This case is before the court on a
joint plea and evidence thereto.
(See note A below for opening state
mentS).
1t is controlling maxim "that
"a court of equity will not aid parties
lH the preparation on contamination
of a fraud; nor give any assistance
whereby either of the parties con-
nected with the betrayal of trust
can derive any advantage therefrOm.
1t is contended that this case does
not fall within the general rule be-
cause the fraudulent scheme ended
with the purchase of the bonds, and
the aid of the court is not invoked to
enforce the same. 1t is clearly shown
however that such purchase was
merely the initiatory steps toward eff
fecting the main design. The theory
of the bill, the plaintiffs (Farley)
own testimony and all the facts and
circumstances proved demonstrate
that the scheme was to acquire the
large railroad properties through the
ACQUISITION and use of the depreci-
ated bonds.
The plaintiff (Farley) urges that he
devised the plan and that without
the assistance he alone could give
the plan would necessarily fail. He
goes even further in disclosing that
it was only through the cOncealment
of his connection with the operation
could success be realized.
He held an eminently fduciary re-
latiOn to all interested in the prop
erty committed to his management,
and it was through information thus
acquired and concealed from the
beneficiaries (the stock and bond
holders of the St. Paul and Pacific)
also from the state and United
States courts that the contemplated
fraud could be effected. Here fol-
lows certain legal maxims and de-
auctions holding that party to a
fraud could not invoke the aid of the
court. (See note b. Especially must
that be the rule where trusted Of
fcer of the court, whose position is
both advisory and fiduciary, seeks it's
assistance to compel confederates to
share with him the spoils acquired
through his cOncealmentS and
deceitS which he admits were
and himself necessary s to their
success through the betrayal of his
trusts. The plaintiff (Farley) con-
ceived scheme to wreck the vast
interests which it was his duty to
protect.
He had acquired in his fiduciary
capacity information through which
the desired end could be reached. 1t
was necessary for him to have con-
federates that he should impart to
them this secret information; that
he should continue through the pro-
greSS of the scheme to advise with
and inform them of what from time
to time became known to him; that
his connection with them should be
concealed from the courts to whose
1,1 :ol, 10 \