St. Paul daily globe., 1895-09-28
1T WAS INTENDED TO BEGIN
THE ORIGINAL ACTION In
ST. PAUL.
NO JURISDICTION In MILWAUKEE,
Looking for Favorable Decis
lon On the Second Position
Taken. /

the balance of the afternoon. In
company with General Manager
Kendrick, he visited the Northern
respects to all of the principal heads
of departments.
To the reporters, the now famous
New Yorker had comparatively lit
tie to say, because, as he said, his
opinions had been very thoroughly
ventilated in court and in the news
papers heretofore. In reply to ques-
tions Mr.. Ives said he is on his
way to Seattle to be present in
Judge HanfordS court on Oct. 2,
when the Ives suit against the re-
ceiVerS conduct of affairs will be
given an airing. Since the decision
of Judges Gilbert and Hanford on
Sept. 2, declaring that Judge Jenkins
did not have jurisdiction, a new
complication has arisen through the
resignation of the receivers, ten
dered to Judge Jenkins at Milwau-
kee. The designations have not been
accepted as yet, but yesterday were
also filed in st. Paul and Seattle.
Mr., Ives rapidly reviewed the be-
ginning and the outcome of his suit,
which was based on two principal
grounds: First, that Judge Jenkins
did not have jurisdiction to appoint
receivers. Second, mismanagement
and malfeaSance in office by the re-
ceivers. On these grounds their re-
Hanford's decision was, it will be
recalled, a substantial victory for
Ives and his friends on the first
point
Judge Hanford's decision," said
Mr.. Ives, practically sustained the
position we had taken, and since
that time the Northern Pacific road
has been, in sense, managing itself.
AS to what Judge~Hanford may do
on the charges of maladministration
by the receivers, that is a matter 1
cannot discuss freely, because 1 do
not know the courts intentions, and
cannot properly anticipate, the de-
cision. Naturally, we expect that
new men will eventually be named
to take charge of and manage the
property. In that event, of course
1 expect that the policy I have been
advocating right along will be adopt
ed. Briefly, and for a starter, Mr..
Ives plan, as stated by himself, is
to, prevent 6 consolidation of the
Northern Pacific with any other
road.
Asked as to the Hill-Morgan plan
of consolidation, Mr.. Ives said: ,"Oh,
that is dead, and cannot be resur-
rected. If a new plan should be
proposed, we might consider it, but
such thing is unlikely. Anyway,
we will not attempt to cross bridge
before we come to it,
1t was quite apparent from his
manner that Mr.. Ives expects that
new receivers will be appointed, and
he said in effect that he did not think
any one of the old receivers would
be reappointed. He would not, how
ever, say in which court the appli-
cation for new receivers will be
made. 1t will not be at Milwaukee,
however.
Ex-Counsel McNaught gave de-
cidedly interesting talk to a Clio b e
reporter. He recalled the fact that
his former secretary, H. H. Trow-
bridge, arrived in st. Paul on the
morning of Aug. IA, 1898, with a pc
tition for the appointment of re-
ceivers to be presented to Judge
Sanborn.
Those papers were sent from New
York" said Mr.. McNaught, "but they
were not filed in st. Paul On the
night of the 14th of August they
were sent to Milwaukee by some
officer Of the road, over my pro
test, and on the morning of the 18th
Judge Jenkins named the receivers.
I have maintained from the very
first that the Eastern district of
Wisconsin could not have primary
jurisdiction over the whole road
when it did not have Jurisdiction
over any part of it. The Eighth.
Judge Sanborn's, or the Ninth, Judge
Hanford's district, either one had
primary jurisdiction, but not the
Seventh, Judge Jenkins. Therefore
I wanted to have the papers filed in
st. Paul, but my desires were over
ruled. Judge Hanford's decision, L
think, has sustained my position as
to Judge Jenkins lack of iuristlic-
ton"
In reply to a question as to the
power that would be possessed by
receivers Judge Hanford might
name, Mr.. McNaught said it would
be complete and unquestioned.
Suppose they should be appoint
ed before the designations of the old
receivers have been accepted, would
that give rise to a clash of au-
thority?"
Such thing has never occurred,
and will not occur in this case.
When one court appoints the others
will simply ratify the appoint
ments."
Messrs. Ives and McNaught will
leave for Seattle this afternoon, and
will spend some time in the West
after the case is decided Oct. 2. They
expect that the receivers will be rep
resented at Seattle. but do not think
that the required bonds of $100, 900
from each will be filed, since they
have resigned. By the decision of
Sept. 2 the Seattle court has be-.
come the court of primary jurisdic-
tion, and when it convenes Oct
the second part of Mr.. Ives COM
plaint will be heard. This involves
the alleged mismanagement on the
part of the receivers. After this
has been settled, the Ives people will
undoubtedly take quick action look
ing to the appointment of new man
ayers of the property.