Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-06-06
BATTLE OF GIANTS.
Lseal TIianS Engage In a Combat
Over The Separate R,CeITsrship.
CLOSELY CONTESTED ISSUES,
lf the Short Lins Is Separated, 0ppOn'
ents VI tue Policy Waut Certain
Condition. Imposed.


whore Chief Justice Merritt listened
10 the proceedings taken by the Amer.
lean Loan and Trust company against
the Union Pacific for the appoiutmeui
Of n separate receiver for the Oregon
Short Line And UIsh aud Northern
railway lines Ia UtSh. Thute were
present Of counsel for the Union
Pacific, MssirA rhurslon, Pierce,
Sanbotn and Hall, bcsidos the local
attorneys Williams and Young; and .o'
counsel fos the loan company Mossrs.
storey Hni Kellogg, aud local alter.
ncys Bennett aud Marhail; also Mt.
Egan aud a number u Union Pacific
aud other railway ofllcipls.
=. l.. Williams moved tho admission
to the bar Of Mosgs. rhurstou, 5iub3su
nud Hal, % counsel Tor tho Union
Pssiiic, Mr.. Pierce already being II
member J,A.Msrfhail moved thr nd
misaion Of Mess. Kellogg aud Storey,
OF counsel TOT the American LoHn and
trust company. All were admitted.
Mr.. Storey Olenod this proceedings
In tho case without delay, by rcciting
| the history % thu issue Of mDttgagts
hui subscquont events In tho now
notable caHs. A consolidated mort.
gage had been made Ia 1859, covering,
tor about sl4,OOO,OO subject ~ first
morigHgr, tho Oregon Short Line,
/ the Utah q Northern, the Utah South
efn, anu Utah Southern Extension
railways. In the same year, after the
mortgage was mode, tho Short Line
entered into n trAilio contract with tue
| uhiOn Pacific, by which the latter
! guaranteed the Interest and agreed u
! bear tue short Line Operating OKpeb.
stH. IL alsJ agreed 20 execute mort
gagS on the Union Pacific 10 guarantee
tue fulilmuut Of IL agreement. Through
| that agreement the UuiOn Pacific con.
| ttOilel the Short Line, the same mon
representing both roads. This control
| prevented the Short Lice from getting
It, share Of business with other roads.
! This was the condition when, Ia OctO-
| hor. 1893, application was made by
| Union Pagilc Stockholders for u
recoverable for the T5Ri, which aupli.
Gallon was granted, placing thp main
line and all branches IA tic hands OF
the receiver. The traillc contract. Mr..
Storey stated, was the only basis Of
claim OF cOulr0l over the short Line
by tue Union Pacific, and that was
made subsequent 10 the Loan COM
pAny's mortgage. The interest on the
mortgage was In default, aud the trai.
no contract having been broken by
the Union Pacific, II had no claim,
thefoiOfst he Loan company demanded
It's rights under the mortgage.
Sir. Storey argued that Tue Oregon
Short Limo should no free to operate
It's llues, aud should BE- independent,
| In securing counsel aud advice, from
tue Influence Of IN party 10 tho trafiic
contract which had not fulfilled IT.
agreement. II was wrong TO place
10th intetrbts, which were adverse to
sacl lthoT, In tue same hands. There
1 had bsuu several branch llnas east, In
| Colorado anu elsewhere, which had
teen segregated, hut the expense Of
operating the Union Pso flo was the
sans, and the Short Lac was com.
PEELED 10 pay n heavier share thereof
tnan before. This the Loan company
oblecitd 10, aud asked the court b give
relief by appointingE separate receiver
This had been done Ia the eighth and
ninth clTcults, and similar action was
asked Ia Utah. Az TO the fret mort
gage, Mr.. Storey said the Loan CON.
pauy, finding the Interest thereof un.
paid, had the right 10 pay II, and act
under its mortgage, As trustee. The
Loan company offered 10 pay this In
tetest, aud asked the termination OF
the Union Pacific receivorshlp over
tho Snort Line and the appointment
VI y receiver In its own behali.
Senator ThurstOn-We arc willing n
you pay; hut you ask the court to raise
tho money by receivers certificates,
70 pay the indebtedness. You do mol
pay 1t yourselves.
Mr.. slotey-Wo ask the court 10 al.
low US TO pay II out OF our own prop.
erty, which we have right to do.
Mr.. storey than rocltei the history
OF the litigation Ia Portland and st.
Paul In tho Utah district there was
ll6U miles OF road In the hands
VI tho Union Pacific, but not
held under any other mortgage than
that Of the Loan company. There
were tour distinct Glasses Of property,
and ths Loan company asked for
Utah an order identicAlly tho same rs
was granted at Portland. MIR. storey
| tnNn llhht hh hkhhl'hN III sup
port OF the proposition TO pay
the tirsi mortgage interest with
fsceiyeT,H certificates, which had
been upheld Ia the 81. Paul court
where the question was heard. Ia
that COURT, It was held that tho power
10 decide that issue Testei In the court
AT Portland, In the eighth Circuit. tAs
the Utah court also had primary juris,
diolion on part Of the line, AN order
similar ~ the Portland order was
asked here, that this order may DO the
sams In all jurisdictions.
Judge MerrlIt-Do y5u argue that
because an order has beg n made In one
court, the other should 4 low 1t, right
OT wTOng2
MI. Storey-No, your honor; we
ask this order because We have lega
right TO II.
Mr.. PieTCe-Ars you rssdy to state
your 10 ition ~ 10 the U,nh Southern
Extsnsion2 DO you reserve the option
to take It or not?
Mir. StOIey-Ws ask an order per
hitting US To TAKE II, and reserve al
option,
Mr.. PloTce-Then you would leAve,
II you saw lit, thst suotiou unGe: tn,
present Teceivers2
Here Mr.. rhurslon anu Mr.. Storey
disagreed as 10 what occurred at 81
Pau, la court, SenAtor NhuistOn re-
marking thai they mad disagreed sC