The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-09-29
BRAYToN IVES WONT HAVE IT.
He Declares. With Mcknight, That
.Ienkfns' Action Is Absurd.


s. Paul Sept 2s-Counsei James Nc
Naught. OF the Northern Pacific, this
afternoon gave out strong statement as
10 Judge jenkins appointment OF receiv-
ers. IL was subsequently, submitted 20
President Brayton Ives, who adopted IL as
his personal expression. II is as follows:
''The court at Milwaukee. where no part
Of the property OF the Northern Pacific is
located, has appointed two receivers for
the Northern Pacific. This is the greatest
judicial farce ever known TO the history Of
American courts. No court OF limited Jur-
isdiction over any part Of an interstate
road has ever heretofore attempted 10
operate and control the whole interstate
system. 1t is a well-recognized principle OF
interstate comfy that the court first ac-
qutring jurisdiction viii be recognized as
the court Of primary jurisdiction over the
whole. but no rule or principle OF comfy
or business justifies or requires the recog-
milton OF a court without jurisdiction over
any part OF the road as a court OF juris-
diction over the whole. And il is certain
that the old-organized and long-established
rule Of interstate and inter-district comfy
will be recognized by the courts having
Jurisdiction over the Northern Pacific.
'sThe appointment Of Mr.. Bigelow as
one OF the receivers was violation OF all
rules heretofore governing the appoint
ment Ct receivers. He is not a resident OF
f. located. and has no acquaintance with
the road it's properties or it's relations
with the public. Justice Miller, of the
United States supreme court, removed
Messrs Willard and Greedy from the re-
Ownership OF the Kansas e. Pacific road
some fifteen years ago because they were
non-residents and not acquainted with
the property This rule. which has al
ways been recognized. with this single ex-
ception OF the Milwaukee court. disquali-
fies Mr.. Bigeiow for appointment.
MIR. McfTenry is acquainted with the
road and is in many respects a good ap-
pointment. If the action of the court may
be called such
In reply 20 n query as to whether this
action would be final. Mr.. Mcknight re-
Piled Judge Sanborn win be called upon
TO confirm the appointments above re-
ferred TO. and will probably appoint a
third receiver. So far as Mr.. Bigelow is
concerned. IL would certainly seem that
the appointment Will not be confirmed"
Mr.. Mcknight could not express himself
too positively as to the improperly and
folly of the appointment of Mr. Blgelow.
or upon the point that the court had no
jurisdiction. Mr. Ives and party left for
the West this afternoon. Before leaving
the feeling of the entire party was well
stated By one prominent stakeholder. who
said
THE appointments made by Judge Jen-
kns today are not satisfactory 10 the re-
organization committee. the second mort
gage committee. third mortgage commit
tee. the trustees. nor anybody else. They
are absurd. Judge JeIkins' proceeding
was prccipitate 10 certainly surprised
and mortified us all. We are convinced 1t
was n great mistake"
Mr. Ives refused 20 be quoted. but some
of his friends insist that this exactly ex-
presses his views.