The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-08-15
SCORE FOR EACH SIDE
Ives Gains One Point, the \. L.
Receivers Another.
THE pLEADINcs ARE AMENDED
put the Oficials DO Not Have TO APP
pear ia Court Next ThurSday
A Hot skirmish.

Preliminary TO the effort TO Dust the re-
ceivers of the Northern PACING ana 70 s.
cure the appointment OF others ~ men
stead there was another 3hiFinisg De
tween the legal forces IN the 'hseu
states circuit court yesterday afternoon
IA indicated In yesterdays Post-fatell-
rencer. SlIaE W Petit and s1miiei n
piles fled motions 10 amend the Fseaa
ingg. and to cite II. r. oakes, defasy =
Payne and Henry G. Rouse, RECEIVERS
William " Cromwell. general counsel
and I w. Kendrick. general manager 70
appear before Judge Hauford AuSast -
and be prepared TO produce IN court eef-
tain documents important 10 the case.
The court granted the motion 10 amend.
but denied the other, leaving 70 cennsei
the right 20 renew IL II circumstances
should Justify such course
Counsel for the receivers, eonsi@Nhg Oh
ex-senator John C.. Spooner. G. w. Bunn,
ex-senator John II. Mitchell, Joan ~
Mitchell. IT., and ID. j. Crowley, ara r..
O. Hughes OF counsel for the Farmers
Loan and Trust Company we're ~ court
nj 10 o'clock yesterday morning, bSL st.
Petit and Mr.. Piles were not rcahy 10
proceed, and Judge Hanford continued
The case until o'clock in the AFTERNOON.
Al that hour Mr. Piles addressed tne
cossrf an the object OF the FIRST motion.
Uheu the original bin had been oiled the
fifteenth paragraph contained an a.iesa.
f,on that the Northern paeine h2ifossd
Company owned property in the y1rlsaie-
zion of the United States circuit court loT
,n.l eagserr, district OF Wisconsin. and the
answer filed in due course. admitted the
allegation. But the affidavit Oh which
Brsyton Ives. president OF the Northern
Pacific based his application 10 nave Tue
receivers removed, alleged that the COM
many dsd not have and never had had any
ts~tg "a
yVerc Wholly incompatible. Mr.. Ptifs, IN
presenting the motion, said that he
amendment did not 80 10 the substance
of the matter at issue, and th.tt ne haa
sapposed tho motion We ild not DC sesist-
ed.
The Motion Not 80 Innocent.
Mr. Hughes who followed Mr.. Piles.
explained that out Of the array OF us
tfnvt,ished counsel there was none "a rei'-
rasenf tho couaplainauts. and Il Therefore
sell 10 HIS lot 10 speak against tic mo-
zion. In an elaborate argument ne ioiht-
"a out the reasons why the motion should
he denied The right 20 amend. ne eN-
nlained. always depended on the circun-
stances In the case. The appli sdtion was
NOT so innocent as 1t seemed upon ii9 lace
and he caused a smile TO light for an IN
.,a,, an tho faces OF the attorneys when
ho stamped the application as on limo
cent abroad" with home In the eastern
district OF Wisconsin. Dir. dushes SAD
In part ~
ternine the question OF lufisaictloh' ana
then 10 appoint the receivers for TWO
vaa-s that action has remained unques-
t,onas The court ordered the payment
OF preferential claims and the Issuance
Of e. 500 600 of receivers certificates at
time when the defendant was represent
ed by the present counsel IL the appiica-
zion were addressed 10 the circuit court
for the eastern district or Wisconsin.
that court might well hesitate TO grant
leave 10 amend. The application should
he addressed TO the court which hrst TOOK
Jurisdiction Of the cause and which Tor
two years has administered this vast
trust estate. IL the proceeding had been
filed here primarily, the allegations OF
the fifteenth paragraph would be wholly
imratsrial for the court would not con-
Germ itself with the question whether any
part OF the rem were I'm the eastern dis
trict OF Wisconsin or not"
Mr. Hughes then pointed cut the fact
that Judge Uanford had a few days pre-
viousiy assigned for hearing the vital
legal questions of the proceeding. The
questions to be determined were: Wheth~
er THIS court, treating the jurisdiction as
origis.a,, will determine whethe~ another
court eyer acquired jurisdiction OF the
rem, or win refer Il back TO that court.
whether IN a personal action II Is Al all
material whether a part OF the rem is in
wisconsin for the court 10 acquire juris-
dc Ion. whether portion OF the rem
subject to mortgages. jurisdiction once
having attached. viii not continue
thro ghont tie proceeding. no matter
wha' may become Of the status OF the
property Mr.. Hughes closed by indicat-
ing that the above questions should be de-
termined August - ~ the court sitting.
with Judge Giibert, IN hanc. and that 20
pass upon them sooner would he 20 fore
stall matters 70 be considered ~ tina.
hearing.
Spconcr for the Receivers.
when Mr. Hughes had finished. Mr.,
rcttls addressed the court sayiuw he had
no objection 10 counsel f0r receivers he
ing heard. and thoTeupoa Mr.. Spooncr
spoke against the motion. No one real
izea. he said. more fully than himself ;hot
70 arrange tho plcadinga was beyond the
functions or the receivers who were only
officers Of the court Had the proceeding
Teen brought before the Milwaukee court.
he would regard It a. improper and in-
delicate far counsel exclusively Cor the
receivers 20 take part In tho discussion.
and he ala not PROPOSE 70 be beguued into
any elatemont as "a matters 20 come up
Tor confederation az the time already set
Ter hearing lie continued.
However. tie proposed amendment Is
M attack on the jurisdiction. The hin
aiieges that part OF the railroad Is IN the
Eastern district of Wisconsin, and the
answer admits g. ] think then. Your
honor viii see without a moments rcflcc-
tion that there ought not now 20 be a
change in the plcadings We expect 20
meet In an oPen. manly and frank way
MI the ALLEGATIONS made IN the appiica-
ton OF Mr.. Ives. u your honor shall
come 10 the conclusion that. in view Of
the proceedings already had the court for
tho Eastern district of Wisconsin must
De regarded. So comfy. as the court or or
igiuai jurisdiction. take q Your honor
win not permit anything 20 be done in
this case which could not lee done in that
case lt would seem perfectly clear that
the motion 10 amend should. await the
ed The answer has been Ia court for
two years. and DO rot think % wait for
two weeks longer VIII either make the
distinguished gentlemen sick or 90 them
harm. IL looks. though I would rot inn
pate such a thing "a my hcnorcd friends.
as though they would attcmpt 10 antici-
pate tho question Of amendment and TO
ask tn cour; for pre- Judgment or a pre-
decision Of the questions here submitted.
II would seem 80 be proper that the mat
ter awsl. run argument without this un-
necessary haste"
The Amendment L. Allowed.
without bearing from Mr. Petit VINO
was prepared 70 address the court. JUDGE
Hsnford stated that hc regarded the 9gl,,s-
tion Of amendment as \ matter ~ right
when the justice Of the cause required IL.
In allowing the amendment ne allowed
s,-,,,,,v,vr1x Seattle
{ / Flour.