The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1895-09-19
ACTION OF CHILDS
Suit Brought by MinnesOta's At
tOrney General Against the
Great Northern.
Restraining 1t From COnsummat-
ing the Deal With the
Northern Pacific.
Il Is on Di iferent Grounds From
the One Decided by Judge
SanbOrn.

ST. PAUL, Sept. 19-Attorney General
Childs has begun an action on behalf OF
the state, III 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 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 Oh account Of the
damages it is alleged the people of the
state will suffer if the deal is consume
mated.
The complaint i'll the action is very
lengthy, covering II pages OF typewrit-
ten matter. 1t will be filed in the dis
| trict court and the whole matter will
come up Oh "a motion for an injunction
next Sat urday. No temporary injunc-
ton HIS been issued, or will be issued in
this case.
The 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 that sci
up in the Pearsal case.
The plaintiff continues by alleging
: that H IL informed and believes tha'
1 the defendant claims the right to mak'
and carry out the contract and arrange
ment, including the guarantee, unde
e the authority of the laws of the state o
] Minnesota, and in particular under tn
authority of the several acts of the legis
e lature, under which it claims to be or
e ganized. But, the plaintiff AYERS tina
= the laws of the state do not confer upOl
K the defendant the power necessary t
. make or carry out the arrangement AM
that it is prohibited by the laws of tn
state.
The complaint further recites the fac
q that the roads are sharp competitors fo
: business and alleges that the agreemen
Ii is, in effect and for all intents and pun
II poses, L consolidation of the interests c
9 the defendant and the Northern Pacific
whereby the Great Northern seeks t
obtain the control and operation OF tn
other company; that if the compame
II are suffered and allowed to enter int
and effect this agreement, they will /
% substantially controlled by the Grea
It Northern management and that a
It competition between them will fOreve
d cease, to the great and permanent dan
ID age Of the people of this state. F(
l, these reasons the plaintiff demand
70 Judgment that the defendant, /
e. officers, directors, attorneys, agents al
II servants be forever enjoined from
le any manner or form entering into, col
to summating Or effecting this agreemen
Sc or from consolidating with the Mort
h, ern Pacific Railroad company; al
IS furthernOre, that temporary lnJun
e- ton to the same effect may be issue
e, pending this litigation: that the So
e. agreement, arrangement or cOnsOlid
ton, if executed by the said defendal
may be declared null and void, and {
dered to be Cancelled, and for such 9th
er and further relief as to the court III
he saem inst