The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-08-23
A BATTLE OF BRAINS.
Distinguished Counsel Arguing
the y. p. Case.
JURISDICTION IS THE ISSUE.
One speech I'm Favor of the Ives Petit
ton and Three Against It-Argu-
ment Not Finished.

When the United States circuit court
convened in the rooms OF the criminal de-
partnent OF the superior court yesterday
morning 10 hear argument on the sppllca-
ton OF Brayton Ives. as president OF the
Northern Pacific Railroad Company. 10 va
cate the order appointing Thomas r.
Cakes Henry c. Payne and Henry G.
Rouse as receivers OF the company, there
was such a gathering OF counsel as had
never before been seen in the Pacinc
Northwest The list presented names OF
men all widely known for ability and learn
ing in the profession Of the law. and many
famed In politics and distinguished in
craftsmanship. Five OF counsel had been
in the United States senate and OF that
number one still remains member OF that
body. while four have retired after max
Ing for themselves regulations as broad
as the land.
OF counsel for the receivers there were
ex-senator John G. Spooner, Of Wiscon-
sin. and Counsel Charles ". Bum, Of 81.
Paul for the Farmers Loan and Trust
Company, complainant, there were j. @.
! Flanders. of Milwaukee: ex-senator J. y.
Dolph, OF oregon, and ex-senator John B.
Allen. OF Washington: while associated
with them were Senator John H. Mitch
ell. OF Oregon; J. VI. Ashton, of Tacoma,
and W. J. Curtis. of New York. the latter
a law partner OF William y. Cromwell,
who succeeded James McNaught as gen
eral counsel for the Northern Pacific, and
finally for the defendant there were ex-
Senator Wilbur +. Sanders, OF Montana;
Silas w Petit. Of Philadelphia; S. H.
Piles and Harold Preston. OF this city. The
court room. during both morning and af
ternon sessions, was comfortably filled.
a large percentage of the audience being
attorneys. who had gathered 10 listen to
the exposition OF the legal principles in
volved in the hearing.
The application presented by Mr. Ives
calls up two questions, the first relating
TO the Jurisdiction of the United States
circuit court for the eastern district of
Wisconsin, and the second advancing
charges against the receivers, whereby il
is said they have attempted cOllusively and
fraudulently to place the road under the
control OF the Great Northern. The ques-
ton first to be argued is that of jurisdic-
ton.
A Limit of Time Fixed.
When Judge Gilbert called the case of
the Farmers Loan and Trust Company VS..
the Northern Pacific Railroad Company ct
al, Mr.. Allen arose and addressing the
court referred to the large number of at
torneys. who represented three distinct in
terests. and the vast amount OF property
Involved. 1nasmuch as Judge Gilbert, one
of the judges of the circuit court of APP
peals. was to pass upon the issues, the
questions TO be determined at this time
would largely determine the questions in
that court. There were many questions
to be raised many authorities to be cited
and many Determinations TO be made, and
Mr.. Allen thought IL wise to remove the
usual rule limiting argument.
How much time do you think will be
| necessary asked Judge Gilbert
That question, Mr.. Allen said, had not
been discussed, as counsel thought IL de-
sirable to place no limitation on the speak
ers. Mr.. Petit, in answer to a question by
Judge Hanford. also stated that he was
unable to tell how much time his side
would require. There were four attorneys
on his side. and he did not yet know what
they would be called upon to answer. He
was willing 10 consent to any arrangement
agreeable 10 the other side.
The two judges conferred for a few mo-
ments, and thereupon Judge Gilbert an
nounced that the court would allow the
one side six hours in which to present the
petition and the other side six hours in
which 10 oppose il: the attorneys TO APP
portion the time as they thought proper
If at the close Of the argument there ap-
peared necessity for extending the time
the court would consider an application
for extension.
on motion of Mr.. Spooner the answer OF
the receivers was amended. and a like
amendment TO the answer of the Loan and
l.
Mr.. Allen.
More Affiiavits for Ives.
on behalf OF the railroad company. Mr.
Preston asked leave 10 file two affidavits
OF George W. Board. of New York supple
mentary to the affidavit of Mr. Ives al
ready fled. The affldavits were fled sub
| ject 10 objection. They stated that Board
for twelve years an employee of the COM
pany, was secretary of the Northern Pa
10 pftf haf bn
Offices OF the company were located in
| New York city. ST. Paul and Tacoma Dur
| ing the entire time Of operating the road
| he said. the meetings Of the board Of d.
| rectors have been held in New York. but
most OF the executive, managing and en-
| Grating officers have been required 10 live
| IN Minnesota or Washington. The COM
pany has never maintained in the eastern
| district OF Wisconsin any offices exCert
ticket offices. operated under the Viscon-
| sin Central lease. None of the Offices the
affidavit states. were in existence in OctO-
Der, 1898. at the time of the foreclosure
| proceeding and the appointment of the re-
ceivers The affidavit further states that
/ at that time there was no property OF any
/ description belonging TO the company ex-
! cept rolling stock. and that 4 there were
/ such cars IN the district at the time ~ fl
/ Ing the bill they were IN the possession OF
! other railroads and We're not taken posses
/ sion OF by the court They were there only
! for the purpose OF interchauLing business
! and long since have been removed
/ According to the second afsi Iavi. on Au-
| gust =. iS92. and for many months prc-
/ viouSly all the bonds. stocks and securities
4 Of whatever description. except only hills
/ % exchange and promlssory notes received
/ hE The operating department were kent in
| the custody OF the treasurer OF the com
+ pany IN New York, an1 tho bulk Of the
/ bills and notes were kept by The assistant
/ treasurer az s.. Paui. while the remainder
/ was in the hands OF accounting officers.
! Immediately after the receipt OF infor-
/ nation by telephone that the court at MI
| vaukeo had just made tho appointment II
| the receivers. she circuit court for the
| southern district 81 New York made an
! appointment. substantially Identical
| Tho Case for the COMPANY.
/ Mr.. Preston who opened the argument
! for the railroad company In support of the
/ Application. save detailed ana exhaust
] tFe statement Of the history ~ che case
! from the tlnc II tae original 7np9i3t7,er.
/ ~ fae receivers. The bill presented 20 this
! caart. DE S3ia. when the receivers wee
/ appointed contained 2 statement tha. a
7 part of thc Northern Pacific railroad Law
/ I'm .ne eastern district OF Wisconsin and
. thar that court had appointed receivers II
/ IT. Then came the appointment ~ th> 20
] 81 FefS here. directing them totake charge
/ OF att tHe property In October the Farm
/ go iosH and Trust Company flied its biIl
/ pr foreclosure also alleging thar uronrr+y
/ ~ IN" railroad Law ln the district but -
} ca not contain an allegation .har any
! pArt az TIE c5orteaEet property was In
I tslil c+ssf.'t TIE court consolidated tha
I causes ana appointed t1e same receivers