Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-06-07
TWO OR ONE, WHICH?
That Is Tho QUESTION Today as 10
Tho Oregon Short Line Receivers.
SENATOR IuuRsrops lLoQurycr.


lOlay the crowd IN attendance nj
tho Oregon Short Line separate 70.
celvorship heating listened with deep
attention 10 tue How VI logic aud clio.
quonoo irJm tlu lluB Of masters In
legal science. The opening speech
was by Mt. Pierce and was urief lie
was followed In an address Of nearly
two hours by JUICE Kellogg, Of ~.
Paul. who made logical and foroibls
argument. Next came Senator John
NJ. Thurs,on, general solicitor Tor the
Union Pacific, whose expected cnott
was chief among tho affections.
When h0 arose 10 address tho court
there was an almost breathless still.
n1s', continued during his entire
spec h, which was eloquent and im-
prtBsiyo. His uUuOrous but well modu.
lated voice and clear cut sentences
wore listened to with that cloie ntteu.
ton which seldom IL given 81 sneakers
even on occasions where such great
Interests ace involved.
AZ tue opening OF tue court, all wna
~ serene ns though Union Pacific
attorney hsl b0s called u Loan COM
rany attorney n liar at the Close " la.t
evening" session, md the affair been
terminated by threat Of Judge Merritt
tu send thrm 10 jail. IL was allor the
ClIsu Of Judge Mafshalps argument
on behalf Ui the Loan company, when
he was followed by lac Grand Young
TOT tue railway, VINO opposed the grant
lux u the Tqleot for receivers
csftlhcAttr, auu characterized az
uiFhuntst proposition to Hsgts-
cato the road by declining 10 take
any part. In response to Mt. Stotey's
inquiry o. t. whether opposition
would be Withdrawn II the whole road
were taken, Mr. Young replied that he
was not authorized 10 state. At this
point hiUssTs. Pierce and Storey dis.
agreed ~ % what had occurred at st.
Paul ami Oakland. Mr.. Pierce called
Mr.. storey liar, and Judge Merritt
stopped thom, saying hc you'll sund
both to jail. They spol1giEed ana tbs
court warned them that they must
Tot repeat the onense.
This morning the Supreme court
room, where the htRnnK was held
today, was hlled with attorneys aud
railway Hnd business men interested
inltheiHTs uments OF eminent counsel.
Nv AAANN HNNNNNh was NlIs IANINN.
on behalf Of the UniUn Pacific. He
took ~ the three allegations OF thu
Loan company complaint on which
was based the application fc- removal
OF the Iftsont ItCrlVcfs, 80 Tar NJ they
had control Of tho Oregon Short Liue.
Tnrse were that the i've receivers had
0petaied tne Short Line NJ part OF the
Union Pacific system; lhai thoy had
violated the traffic contract Of Dec. o.
lasOi and that they had not made a iair
distribution OF the earnings Of the
roads TO the Short Line. as 10 the
FIRST ground, Mf. Pierce argued
that n the operation Of tho ShOr. Line
40 part OF the Union Pacific sy6tem
was not satisfactory, the proper remedy
wAs % apply 10 She cJutg Tor iustguC.
lions 10 the receiver. In appointing
the receivers the court hsd directed
that the lines should up operated as One
system until other instructions from
the court. This the receivers had done,
Regarding thu other uRscs he denied
tue l. al C0mUauy's proposition.
Speaking VI the request that tue Lagn
company has an OpdUu TO tsko VI lease
any part Of thr rOai, TINT It can take
the paying lines north Of Salt Lake
anu reject tho nOn.pnylng lines south
Of Salt Lake, Mr.. Pierce insisted that
lftuoh AN order were made II would be-
maniiestly unfair TO the receivers and
interests In whose hands the 10.
jected portion would re lett. Tho Loan
cOmpanys mortgage covered one line,
the consolidated roai, and IL could not
he legally aggregated.
MI. Pierce then rave considerable
attention 10 the rule OF comfy, by
N.I 4 .
should follow the action OF the courts
u tue eighth anu ninth districts. He
argued thEt thG Loan company could
nj appeal tD the rule, since It's promo
sitiou was % violate the reason Uf the
rule by dlsmsmperipg the property.
Under this condition he urged that
the Utah court insist upon n uniformity
OF orders which would make the line
lndiyI-iYlH.
MT. Kellogg, for the A meTlcan Loan
aul lgdst company, thcn addressed
thu court. lie referred 10 Mr.. Willlams's
remark that the Loan company was a
stranger mere, anu suggested thal lhoto
were no strangers IN court Of Justice.
TIE Loan company represented AH
trustees the bJndu0ller3 under the
mortgage 10 the extent OF over
so, 900, 900, also the collateral mort
gage of over sl3,0OO,0Ol and Of
the Utah d NoFtAuFn mortgage OF
nearly two Eillioue. The iivo recelv.
era were appointed at tho request OF
stockholders in the Union Pacific, anu
not In the Short Line, though the Union
Pacific owned the Majority OF stock In
the short Line, aud made It's con-
tracts.
Under the traffic contract, when the
Union Pacific failed TO keep It, the
short Line could enter upon tho pOs-
session OF It's property. As the mort
gagoo followed In due course TO this
rights OF the Short Line, then when
the receivers, who were also officers Of
tue Union Pacific, fallsu 10 keep the
contract, then their right to the prop.
urty was oudvi, anu the possessDfy
right belonged to tho mortgage, which
wa the Loan company. Recluns the
history OF the appointment Of Union
Pacific receivers IA tue U,an court,
Mr. Kellogg stated tuat when
tue Uniop Pacific attorney, uudor
the rrst mortgage foreclosure,
came into this court, even before tho
lime when settled, and had reuuiyers
appointed promptly. wan tue Loan
company, IN this court, DO denied tho
Of