St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-08-29
SUMMARY OF THE HEARING AT
SEATTLE IN THE NORTHERN
PACIFIC CASE.
CELEBRATED CONTROVERSY
DID THE WISCONSIN CIRCUIT
COURT HAVE JURISDICTION 8
AND AUTHORITYf
BATTLE ROYAL OF COUNSEL.
Arguments for and Against the
Application to Vacate the Or
der Appointing Receiver

The hearing lately had at Seattle
on an application to vacate the or
der of the United States circuit
court in Wisconsin, appointing re-
ceivers for the Northern Pacific rail-
road, was most important, both on
account of the magnitude of the
issues involved and of the legal
questions to be decided. The news
reports of the matter have been but
scanty, affording comparatively lit
tie idea of the ground covered and
of the exact issues submitted to the
court for decision. The Glob e
has obtained full and absolutely
accurate and impartial statement of
the proceedings, for the information
of its readers. 1t is of especial inter
est at this time, not only to the legal
profession, but to the entire public.
The application recently argued at
Seattle to Vacate the previous order
Of the United States circuit court
for the district Of Wisconsin, ap-
pointing receivers of the Northern
Pacific Railroad company, may be
summarized as follows: The pres
| ent receivers were originally ap-
pointed in the circuit court of the
United States for the eastern dis
trict of Wisconsin, first in the cred-
itors' suit on the 18th of August,
1893, and second in the foreclosure
suit on the 18th of October, 1898, the
two suits on the latter day having
been consolidated together and hav-
ing since proceeded as one suit. An
ancillary creditors suit was brought
in Washington, and the same re-
ceivers appointed there on the 18th
of August, 1898. An ancillary fore
closure suit was brought in Wash
ington and the same receivers re-
appointed there on the 30th of Octo-
consolidated in Washington as in
Wisconsin. Similar ancillary suits
were brought and orders of appoint
ment made in other courts. To these
it is not necessary to refer in de-
tall
Under these appointments the
whole property of the Northern Pa
nearly two years. The Northern Pa
cific company has answered and ap-
peared in both suits at Milwaukee
and has participated from the be-
ginning in all the proceedings. No
claim or suggestion has been made
in the Wisconsin court or in any 9TH
er Of the courts that these proceed
ings were irregular or invalid until
the filing Of the motion in question.
The motion at Seattle was mo-
ton to vacate the order Of that
court made on Oct. 80, 1893, appoint
ing the receivers. 1t is based On two
grounds stated in the affidavit of
Brayton Ives, president of the COM
pany, filed to support the motion;
first, that the circuit court for the
eastern district of Wisconsin had no
jurisdiction to appoint receivers, on
the alleged claim that there was no
property within the jurisdiction of
that court when it made the ap-
pointment, and that the appoint
ment in Washington having been
made without independent consider
alton by that court and on the the
ory that it was a perfunctory ap-
pointment to aid the previously es-
tablished receivership in the Wis
consin court, it ought to be now
vacated, and the court ought to ap-
point it's own receivers if it appears
that the court in Wisconsin was
without jurisdiction. Second, some
charges of mismanagement and i'm
proper conduct and unfitness are
made against the receivers as an
additional ground of removal.
The hearing lately completed at
Seattle covers only the first ground
Of inquiry above suggested The
court separated the case into two
parts, hearing and disposing of, first,
| the claim that the Wisconsin circuit
court was without jurisdiction. What
is done with the second part of the
case above indicated, or whether
anything is done will depend on the
ruling of the court on the legal
propositions comprised in the first
part of the case and lately SUBJ
| mitted.
The argument lately had centers
around the questions whether that
court will hear any attack on the jurfs-
| diction of a coordinate court, or remit
| the parties to the circuit court in Wis
consin to make there their objection
10 ifesi i.,ri lodi offn
| into any inquiry at all about the juris-
dictfon Of the Wisconsin circuit court,
| the question argued was whether in
fact that court did have jurisdiction,
and as connected with this whether the
court had property of the Northern Pa
| cific company within its territory; and
| the question was also discussed wheth-
er upon general principles of comfy
| the Washington court ought not in
any event to remit the whole question,
| including the charges against the re-
| ceivers, to the circuit court in Wiscon-
| sin, that being. the court which first
| appointed the receivers and which took
| primary and original jurisdiction over
| the case.
|, There is, of course, no intimation'
from any quarter of the opinion of the
| court and no ground upon which to
| hazard a guess at it's decision. The
eIninence and ability Of the counsel
engaged on both sides make this a BATE
tie royal, WHOSE dstermin ation by the
decision of the c6uH. in Washington,
| will probably not be final In case it'
agrees to remit the whole subject te
the circuit court in WISCONSIN,. as hass
ing original jurisdictionS this hearing
will be but the arstrsteps In a stsenu-