St. Paul daily globe., 1895-11-27
INTERVENES IN THE APPEAL OF
PEARsALL AGAINST THE
GREAT NORTHERN.
HAS PREPARED A BRIEF.
COPIES OF WHICH WERE
SERVED ON THE INTER-
ESTED PARTIES.
Which the Attorney General Pre-
sents Against the ETectua-
ton of the Agreement.

Attorney General ChildS has Inter-
vened on behalf of the state in the.
appeal of the injunction suit of
Thomas w. Pearsall against the
Great Northern Railway company
This is the case in which Mr.. Pearl
sail, a stockholder in the Great
Northern, applied to the United
States court for an injunction to pre-.
vent that company from consolidate
ing with the Northern Pacific. When
the hearing came up before judge
Sanborn, Gen. Childs was given an.
opportunity to intervene on behalf of
the state, but he declined to do So
The case was decided by Judge San
born in favor of the company. Gen.
ChildS then, on behalf Of the state.
began an action. of a similar nature
in the district court, and a few days
ago Judge Kelly granted the injunc
ton asked for, his decision being dix
rectly contradictory of that of judge
Sanborn. Mr.. Pearsall has taken an
appeal from the decision of Judge
Sanborn to the supreme court of
the United States, and by consent
Of all parties to the record, Gen..
Childs has been allowed to intervene.
He has accordingly prepared brief,
a copy of which was furnished yes.
terday to the various parties inter-.
eSted.
In his brief, Gen. Childs reviews
the act of the legislature granting
the original charter on the terms of
which the company claims the right
to consolidate. He also reviews the
that right, he contends, was taken
away, if the legislature had ever in
tended to grant it. He then goes
on to argue that it has always been
the policy of the state to prevent
such consultations as the one con-
templated, quoting from the laws Of
1874 and 1881 to bear out this view,
and also from decisions Of the su-
preme court to show that actual con-
solidation was what was aimed at,
in this case. He urges that the per
mission to consolidate granted by
same general direction, but not COM
peting, the acquisition of which.
might merely act as an extension
of the lines of the defendant. -
Gen. Chi1ds next argues as to the
right of the legislature to amend the
charter of the company so as to take
away this right, if it had ever been.
intended to permit it to consolidate
with parallel or competing lines. He
quoted extensively from various au-
thorities on this point. He says: s
1.-THE defendant not having consoli7-
dated with another company prior to
the enactments of 1874 and 1881, no
rights as to consolidation had vested
in it which were not subject to amead-'
ment by the legislature. This is all the
more true in view of the fact that the.
right to consolidate at all was not con-
ferred until the passage of the act of
1865. 1t would be preposterous to under7
take to base its rights upon the terms
of the original act.
1.-THE incorporating act, if authorizing
consolidation with palallel line, must.
be deemed to have contemplated the
INES duLnGrlZ6Q TO pe CONSTRUCTED 1py
the defendant. 1t having sold and con-
veyed away all the road it ever con-,
structed, the consolidation Of leased
lines is wholly unauthorized.
"As the defendant operates only lines
organized under other charters than its.
own, it can, if it now has the right to
exercise any of the functions of a rail-
road corporation whatever, only oyer
ate them according to the powers con-
ferred by the laws of their creation.
Properties acquired by lease of the st.
Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway
company cannot be used by the defend
ant otherwise than they could be used
by the lessor. If any other view is to
obtain, then the statute may easily be
evaded and a consolidation accomplish
ed indirectly when it could not be df-
rectly done. 1t is manifestly repug-
nant to the letter and spirit of our
laws to permit a corporation, which;