St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-09-26
LUCID EXPLANATION OF WHY
THE N. p. RECEIVERS RE-
SIGNED
CAN'T SERVE TWO MASTERS
CONFLICTING ORDERS WERE
LIABLE TO BRING THEM IN
TO CONTEMPT,
ONE REPORT WAS ENOUGH
And When Two Are Demanded bx
Different Judges They Would
Not Attempt 1t.

The resignation of the receivers of
the Northern Pacific was movement
so sudden and unexpected on their
part that it took the public by sur
prise, and few people understood
the meaning or necessity of it. BY
a great many it was interpreted to
be merely one move in some COM
pllcated game between the interests
that have been looking toward the
control of the great railroad prop
erty Comment and gossip have been
rife, and various hypotheses have
been advanced and explanations Of
Tered. The real reasons which COM
PEELED this step were stated. how
ever, by the receivers themselves:
and the facts of the situation as it
was before the resignation of the re-
ceivers and as it exists today are
given herewith, for the information
of the public.
The property of the Northern Pa
clf1c company is situated within the
jurisdictions of some ten different
federal courts. This property con-
st1tutes one system, which cannot,
in the nature of things, be operated
by different and possibly unfriendly
authorities. The necessity of unity
OF management has been recognized
generally by the courts in all such
cases. This is done by an agree
ment between the different courts
that may have jurisdiction, when re-
ceivers are appointed, to name the
same men. When one such court has
taken action, the others usually con-
form to its decree, and order the
property to be managed by the men
appointed by the court that first
took jurisdiction. This is what hap
pened until a recent date in the case
of the Northern Pacific.
The receivers of the Northern Pa
cif1c were first appointed by Judge
jenkins, in the United States circuit
court for the eastern district of Wis
consin. Following this action, in ac-
cordance with the rule of comfy
above stated, they were afterward
appointed by the other courts having
jurisdiction in New York, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota,
Montana, Idaho, Washington and
Oregon. They were, at the time of
their appointment, ordered to ac-
count to Judge Jenkins. For the
two years since they were placed in
charge they have managed the prop
erty under the directions of that
court and reported to it. Until the
suit brought at Seattle, no change
In this method Of management had
been suggested. Charges were made
against the receivers, but a conflict
of Jurisdictions had not been
thought Of
These charges, whatever there may
be behind them, are not now an i'm
portant element in the situation. The
difficulties that arise practically grow
out OF the assumption of immediate
authority over them by different and
distant and possibly disagreeing courts.
The receivers, when made such by ac-
ton of court, are receivers of that
court. The Northern Pacific receivers
owe an allegiance to all the courts men
toned within the territory where the
road has property. When they were
first appointed, Judge Jenkins required
them to report to him, and to file their
accounts in his court. From it, also.
they We're to take their orders and in
structlons In the management of the
property. Judge Caldwell, in reap
pointing them in Minnesota, ordered
likewise that they report to and take
their orders from the court which took
the initial steps.
Now, by a, decision of the court in the
state of Washington, a new and appar-
emily impossible situation is created.
1t orders that the receivers file their
accounts in that court and take from
1t their orders and Instructions. Thus
the receivers were under obligation TO
report to and obey the instructions of
two separate and independent courts.
distant from each other by more than
half the width of the continent. After
giving a bond of $500, 900 their accounts
were subject to approval or disap-
proval by these different courts, each
exercising an Independent Judgment.
1t is this situation which they declare
that they cannot tolerate. If they
were ordered to spend 100000 by one
court in improving the road, and for
hidden by the other court to do so.
they would be in contempt of one or
the other in any event. They would
be, in the event of any difference what
ever between the two courts assuming
control, subject to Imprisonment for
contempt in their disobedience of con-
f1icting orders.
These are the reasons given for the
resignation of Messrs. Oakes, Payna
and Rouse, and accepted as sufficient
by those who have examined the legal
aspects of the situation. They have
sacrificed their own interests in the
hope that by their retirement. some
agreement may be reached to make
possible the management of the prop
erty. The situation in which this
leaves the Northern Pacific is one al
together anomalous. On Friday next
Judge Jenkins is asked to appoint new
receivers for the road. But that ac-
ton will not remove the conflict Of
authority already pointed out. Unless
all the courts which have jurisdiction
should agree upon the same receivers,
no Improvement would be made, and
the management of the railroad will
be surrounded by the gravest difficult
ties. Even if the courts do, it is re-
marked that they did so once before;
and that any one of them, following
the Washington precedent, which may
see fit at any time to call the new re-
ceivers before it and order them to
report to it, may restore the old dead
lock and make the position of the re-
ceivers an impossible one 1t is a con-
fiict of judicial authority and juris-
diction that has intervened, say those
who have studied the matter, to per-
plex still further the management Of
Northern Pacific affairs. Great inter,
Continued ON Sixth Page.