St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-08-29
ABSOLUTELY PURE

rying into effect the said arrangement
by any law Of the state of Minnesota
whatever.
b. 1t admits the allegation in paragraph
twelve of the bill as to the value OF
the shares of stock of the Great North
efn Railway company.
Is 1t denies that the contamination OF
execution OF such arrangement will de-
T prectate the value Of the stock of the
complainant, or any other person in
any sum whatever, or that the COM
splainAnt or any person will be injured
COT damaged in any sum- whatever, or
That any injury will result to him or
any other holder of stock similarly
F.. It admits the allegation In said par
zagraph twelve as to the request of the
complainant to the defendant and its
Officers to desist in concentrating or
executing the arrangement aforesaid.
and their refusal so to desist
The 'defendant further alleges that,
on or. about March T. 1879, the legis-
lature OF the state of Minnesota. duly
7 lation. to the taxation and to facilitate
the construction of the Northern Pa
eif1c railroad: which act was approved
March a; 1870. Within ninety, DAYS
Northern Pacific railroad company
filed with, the governor the notice of
the acceptance Of the terms and con-
ditions of the said act as required
LhCl Gil, ciii1 thereafter constructed its
said railroad in the state of Minneso-
ia: relying thereon and pursuant to
said powers
'l HORNS OPENING ADDRESS.
sa When Attorney Kellogg had con-
cluded the reading of the answer. At
torney Horn began his opening address
for the plaintiff. He went into the his
tory of the Great Northern and North
ern Pacific, calling attention to how
the former had succeeded to the char
ter rights of its predecessors. The
two systems paralleled each other, and
though the main lines to the coast are
eighty miles apart, they are classed
as parallel lines. Mr.. Horn next took
up the reorganization scheme and the
financial difficulties of the Northern
Pacific that gave rise to 1t. In answer
to his reference to division of earn
fngs between the two lines, Senator
Davis said there was nothing to show
that division of earnings was con-
templated; to which Mr. Horn re-
piled that while it was not very clearly
stated, there was to be division of
earnings on a mileage basis.
Mr.. Horn then went ON to say that
the two systems were competitive
links between the great lakes and the
Pacific coast and intermediate terri
tory, and the proposition to CONSOLE
date was In violation of the statutes.
The placing of fifty per cent of the
stock of the Northern Pacific in the
hands of trustee for the Great North
ern brought the scheme within the
meaning of the statute of 1881, which
forbids the holding or control of the
stock or property of one line by a
parallel line. The Northern Pacific
would be bound hand and foot by the
proposed reorganization scheme, while
the Great Northern would only be
bound to the extent of living up to its
guarantee. The latter company, con-
trolling half the stock, would be abso-
lutte In it's power to dictate, and the
Northern Pacific would cease to be a
competing line.
In answer to a question by the court
as to- how much the plaintiff was will
ing to concede with reference to the
statutes meaning as to vested rights
under the Great Northern charter
granted to the Minneapolis & st.
Cloud railroad in 1856, Mr.. Horn, after
whispering a moment with Attorney
General Ghilds, said he was not pre-
to concet1e until the other side showed
their hand.
tMr. Horn commended that the pro-
vision in this old charter granting
permission to the Minneapolis & st.
Cloud to connect with another rail-
road running in the same general di-
rection was subject to a double con-
struction. First, it gave permission
1s,,a b1-a
ing another line; and second, the char
ter was susceptible of amendment and
was amended by the acts of 1874 and
1881. and the reservation that such leg
islation was subject to the company's-
vested rights was susceptible of a con-
structfon that would not nullify the
legislation. He cited a number of
cases to sustain his opinion on this
point. Vested rights, he contended,
applied to land or property purchased,
and not to the mere question of the
right of the company to consolidate.
He cited several cases to show that
charter was an enabling act rather
than license
AS to the allegation of the answer,
denying that the plaintiff would be
injured, he said stakeholder could
secure an injunction to prevent the
company from doing an unlawful act,
even though it could not be shown
that he would b.. injured thereby. In
conclusion, Mr.. Horn said that the spe-
cial provisions of charter were Sus-
ceptible of amendment, and gave a
number of citations on the point.
MR.. GROVER FOLLOWED
Mr. Horn in a brief statement Of the
case for the defense, leaving the main
argument to Senator Davis. He went
on to relate the financial difficulties
in which the Northern Pacific had
become involved. and said that the
time was near at hand when the road
would be sold under foreclosure. A
large majority of the bondholders felt
it necessary to foreclose, sell and reor-
ganize, as stated in the answer, and
had asked the Great Northern to aid
in the protection of the property from
further bankruptcy by guaranteeing
the interest not to exceed Sc, 100000 a
year. The contention Of the plaintiff
was that the plan was illegal.
Col. Grover then went into the his
tory Of the Minneapolis & ST. Cloud
railway, and contended that the joint
ownership Of stock was no less per-
nfssible than the Joint ownership of
property allowed by the act under
which the charter was granted. The
real Question was whether the two
lines had right to improve their ia
cities without the expenditure of O.
large amount of capital in the build
ing of new lines-whether the two
lines could not be used as a double
track system between here and st.
Cloud; whether the Great Northern
could secure a line into Winnipeg, from