Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1895-09-19
Suit Brought by Minnesota's AT
torney General Against the
Great Northern.
RestrainingIt From Consummat-
ing the Deal With the
Northern Pacific.
1t Is on Different Grounds From
the One Decided by Judge
SanbOrn.

ST. PAUL, Sept. l9.-Attorney General
Childs has begun an action on behalf of
the state, in the Ramsey county district
court, the object of which is to restrain
the Great Northern and Northern Pa
cific from entering into their proposed
agreement for consolidation. The action
is brought for the same purpose as the
Pearsall case, tried a few weeks ago
before Judge Sanborn in the United
States circuit court, and in which Judge
Sanborn held that the two COM
panies could enter into the agree.
ment if they chose. That case was
brought by one of the stockholders Of
the Great Northern company; the pres
ent action is brought by the state to pre-
vent the agreement on account of the
damages it is alleged the people Of the
state will suffer if the deal is consum-
mated.
The complaint in the action is very
lengthy, covering Ia pages of typewrit-
ten matter. 1t will be filed in the dis
trict court and the whole matter will
come up on a motion for an injunction
next Saturday. No temporary ~injunc-
ton has been issued, or viii be issued in
this case.
Tho Complaint Outlined.
The complaint sets forth the incorpor-
alton of the two roads, the territory
covered by main and branch lines, the
insolvency of the Northern Pacific and
the agreement which it is claimed has
been drawn up for combining the two
roads for operation under one head, sub
stantially the the same same as hat set
up in the Pearsall case.
The plaintiff continues by alleging
that he is informed and believes that
the defendant claims the right to make
and carry out the contract and arrange
ment, including the guarantee, under
the authority of the laws of the state Of
Minnesota, and in particular under the
authority Of the several acts of the legis-
lature, under which it claims to be or
ganized. But, the plaintiff AYERS that
the laws of the state do not confer upon
the defendant the powes necessary to
make OF carry cut the arrangement and
that it is prohibited by the laws of the
state.
The complaint further recites the fact
that the roads are sharp competitors for
business and alleges that the agreement
is, in effect and for all intents and pur-
poses, q consolidation of the interests of
the defendant and the Northern Pacific,
whereby the Great Northern seeks to
obtain the control and operation of the
other company; that if the companies
are suffered and allowed to enter into
and effect this agreement, they will be
substantially controlled by the Great
Northern management, and that all
competition between them win forever
cease, 10 the great and permanent dam
age of the people of this state. For
these reasons the plaintiff demands
Judgment that the defendant, its
officers, directors. attorneys, agents and
servants be forever enJoined from in
any manner or form entering into, con-
summating or efTecting this agreement,
on from consolidating with the North
ern Pacific Railroad company; and
furthermore, that 3 temporary injunc-
ton 10 tine sane eject may lie issued
pending this litigation; that the said
agreement, arrangement or conso.ida-
ton, if executed by the said defendant,
may be declared null and void, and or
dered to lie Cancelled, aud for such other
and further relief as to the court may
$780,, -