The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-08-24


Germ have been entered into. all wiA the
consent Ct TIE defca5znt going into court
a1d agreeing 80 the jurisdiction. t1e raj
read company Is naw attempting 70 qass-
ticn that jurisdiction. The doctrine %
estoppeI runs against 4 party, saying 20
him that net having spoken then, yoa
shall rot he permitted n speak now. 20
uudo 20 RIP or. and 70 set aside every
thing that had % do with that judgment
Alien SAYS Ives spoke Too Late.
Mr.. Mitchell closed ~ 2.s5 o'clock, hav-
sBg n lttIe less than half al hour given
a clear and concise statement OF his side
OF the controversy. He was followed ~
ex-senator Alien. who n the measured
rhetoric aa9 logical discourse so familiar
n the courts where he has pract4ced-
strengthened the arguments already made
fer his side. and assaIled the position e
MS opponents as untsna5ie- He SAID n
part
Although the ruling Of this court might
affect immense properties. after all. the
legal principles involved are not numerous.
nor are they complicated The court can
readily rescb a conclusion, easily estao-
isshed by Law. We have in this case Two
parties. who Two years ago presented
themselves 70 a court, mutually choosing
their ewn forum. ore party not only
comes before the court and makes Itself
a party. but i makes itself an active par
A4t-stdl4s Al q k.fDAAA me StAt'lEifAsAs "a -
piesdings has Acknowledged the Jurisdic-
ton Of that court. This same party goes
further II Invokes the jurisdiction Of that
court Itself. and Il asks thai court - make
a decree, and then il acquesces IN that
decree. Is this an innocent partyE After
thus having induced the court 10 appoint
the receivers, II actively participates A3r
two years in every transaction before that
court. Then for some reason known only
70 itself Il awakens 10 a consciousness
that the court has not jurisdiction Is Il
possible that a court OF conscience, 10
rum of morals. will permit this party 20
say, Let Ii be- wiped out as though u mad
never beeng' Would court of equity per-
nit natural person 10 do sacn thinse
/ think not: and | think also IL viii not
permit an artificial person 70 do that
thing Taking this view, and rememp1"-
ing that this corporation is the same that
appeared in the Wisconsin court. trihu-
nal of coordinate jurisdiction. l would be
willing 70 submit this case, even II there
were shown 10 be no iota OF property in
that state, on the records in that court
alone When that court, under the cir
cumstances. has determined the question
of Jurisdiction. that question is settled 50
far as this court is concerned, and II can
only be considered In a court or review.
Mr.. Allen also considered the pleadings,
restating forcibly the allegation made by
counsel for the company, and referring
TO the concessions. In which, ne argued
with Mr.. Mitchell. the other side had
practically conceded away the case. He
dwelt particularly on the statute, ana
closed at the expiration Of thirty minutes.
He was followed by Mr.. Crowley, of coun-
sci for the receivers.
The Attack ON jenkins Court.
Mr.. Crowley endeayored to refute the
argument that the proceedings were not
a collateral attack on the jurisdiction OF
the Milwaukee court As l understand
it he said. counsel for the defense calls
il a direct attack because IL seeks TO set
aside an order Of this court Then why
is there the allegation as 10 the Wisconsin
court IL the attack is not collateral
IL is because the action already pending
in that court must be got rid Of The
party should be RENTED unless IL can
show some reason OF oveTpo"erinS ne
cessity why this court should take up the
matter and that makes ii a collateral
attack
Mr.. Crowley recited a part of the his
tory of the legal steps so far as they re-
late to the jurisdiction of the MILWAUKEE,
court. saying that up 10 the present time
there had never been a suggestion as 10
lack of Jurisdiction. He spoke OF the
doctrine of the United States supreme
court as 10 foreclosures. and said that the
proceedings taken had been strictly IN ac-
cord with law.
1t seems TO me. ne sdiu, tlidI the
plainest principles Of comfy require that
the defendant be obliged 10 go back 10 the
Milwaukee court 10 make the attack, Tor
here ID is collateral
Mr. Crowley had spoken clearly AMI
forcibly. and he stopped after consuming
twenty minutes, explaining that ne gave
wav for his distinguished colleague. Mr..
Spooner. The hour was S:S5. and before
the next speech was begun. Mr.. Bum in
CURED Of the court how much time was
left 10 his SIDE. Judge Hanford examined
the schedule and announced that but nifty
minutes remained in which TO oppose the
application Mr.. Spooner's time was thus
cut exceedingly short. condition not
agreeable tn hirs, for he arose and said:
Spooner Finishes for Receivers.
I'm all tho years have practiced al the
profession of the law. have never before
been placed in the position occupy today.
II seems 10 me that am like one in har-
vest time who has been sitting on a fence
until skIlsul reapers have gone over the
field. and then has been told TO work in
the stubble. and 20 DO It quickly.
'There seems TO be some difference Of
opinion as &c the status OF the proposition
nov confronting us We say that the pro
ceedings here taken are a collateral at
tack on the court for the eastern district
Of wisconsin while our learned friends
SAL they are not. They also impute 20 -
A nOSittOn We DO not occupy II the mo-
tsfn were to renovA the receivers, there
would have been presented nothing bat
the question Of comfy. hu; that Is not the
-,ronosition and Ne do not deserve the
r, probation which the DISTINGUISHED soma
.or from Montana this morning wl,h W
rtoUc eIoquence poured upon us. They
move 70 vacate the order appointing the
receivers. and upon only the one ground
They do moi deny the allegations CT me
rgli an which the receivers were appoint
- and hv virtue Of which the Northern
Pacific railroad passed into the custody -
,ha court They forget that f. must nov
remain IN custoda legis. Yet they ask
,ha court 70 change that order on the
e.rottnf that this is court 81 primary. not
sreflary- jurisdiction. or rather. and pre-
Ter % put IL this way. that this : 2 cour5
on which the principles 30 comfy operate
not ~ all"
Mr. Saooner here examined into the
character or the proceedings taken, say
inr that II was now too late 20 raise any
question against the jurisdiction Of the
Milwaukee court lie spoke on the bear
ing" Of the securities. quoting the words
ns.a by Mr. Sanders 30 the morning and
saving that the senator from Montana did
hin, an ln iustice and Mr.. Flanders an In
Justice when he made that statement.
I'm q this time Mr.. Spooner had been
speaking In 6ulcct. musical tones. hnt
bere came the first intimatiou Of the
storm that was 90 follow After elaborate
X finishing his remarks on the doctrine
~ eStoprcl he made ready 20 hurl hack
a.. accusation that had been made hy his
ooponent ~ this point his face was a
study. Almost tnstantaneouslv his ev0rss-
s.. ..,,, ,,s,..-7 FROM +Naf ~ the calm talk