St. Paul daily globe., 1896-03-31
DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT
IN THE GREAT NORTHERN
CASE.
A CONSOLIDATION ILLEGAL.
JUDGE SANBORN,S DECISION FA-
VORING THE GREAT NORTH
ERN is REVERSED.
LEGISLATURE MAY ANNUL RIGHTS.
The State Has Power to Prohibit the
Union of Parallel or COmpet-
ing Lines.

WASHINGTON March S0.-Justice Brown
| delivered the opinion of the supreme court to-
day in the cases of Thomas PearsaIl vs. The
| Great Northern Railroad Company, and also
OF the Louisville Nashville Railway Com
pany vs. the commonwealth of Kentucky as
TO the right of parallel and competing lines to
consolidate, holding in the case of the Great
Northern that it could not under its charter.
and in opposition to the act of the Minnesota
! legislature of 1874, be consolidated with the
Northern Pacific, as was sought to be accom-
plished. Justices Field and Brewer dissented
| in the case.
The case of Pearsall VS.. The Great Northern
Railroad Company came to the supreme court
from the circuit court of the United States
for the district Of Minnesota, and the opinion
was rendered by Justice Brown. 1t was bill
In equity filed by Pearsall, as a stakeholder in
the Great Northern company, against the com
! pany, under the laws of the territory and the
state OF Minnesota, to enjoin it from entering
into an agreement with the Northern Pacific
railway company under which the property
ana franchises Of the Northern Pacific Rail-
| road company were to be purchased II an
! pears that the Great Northern was originally
incorporated under the name of the Minneapo-
lis & st. Cloud Railway company. The orig
lnal charter granted the road the right 10 CON.
meet with any railroad running in the same
eeheral direction, and to consolidate its stock
he
question presented to the supreme court wa G
whether the company could be deprived of tbis
| right by subsequent act of the state legisIa
ture lnhibltlng the consolidation lease or mr.
chase by any railway of the stock property or
franchise of any parallel or competing line
tne legislature having passed such a. law in
| 1874. " 40" III
me court answered the question in the af-
HrinatlVe The court says that il was conne
LEGISLATURE n liroif 81
ana 10 declare that the power it had CON
AerFed upon the Minneapolis G. St Cloud corn-
pany to consolidate its interest with other sim
liar corporations should not be exercisad CO
iar as applicable to parallel competing Iipes
inasinuch as 1t is for the interest of the peonle
allel railroads" par
The legislature" 1T continues ..hos ~.
r1gnt to assume in this connection that neitb-
er road would reduce it's tariff to a destruct
I'VE or Improbable figure, or to a point where
ei1HeF ROAD would become Valueless to its
stockholders, and the object of the act in
question IS to prevent such a combination he
tween the two as would constitute a MON
opoly."
Whether the consolidation of comnetine
lines VIII necessarily result in an increase of
rates, or whether such consolidation has gan
efaliy resulted in a detriment to the pubJic is
peslde the question. Whether il has that
enect or not, it certainly puts it in the power
OF the consolidated corporation to give If that
enect-in short, put the public at the mercy
oI the corporation. There is, and has been
1or the past 300 years, both in England and
lhls country, popular prejudice against mon
opoEes IN general, which has found express
sion IN innumerable acts of legislation We
cannot say that such prejudice is not well
founded. 1t is a. matter upon which the legis-
lature is entitled to pass judgment There
are, moreover, thought to be other dangers TO
the moral sense of the community incident to
such great aggregations of wealth. which
though indirect, are even more insidious in
their influence, and such as have awakened
feelings of hostility, which have not failed to
nnd expression in legislative acts"
The consolidation of those two great eorno.
rations would, said the court. unavoidablv
result in giving the Great Northern a monon-
oily OF all traffic in the northern part of the
state OF Minnesota, as we'll as of all transcon
tlhental trafflc north of the line of the Union
racine, against which public regulations
WouId De but feeble protection The act of
'he legislature of 1874, he concluded, undoubt-
edly reflected the general sentiment of the
public, that their best security is In comneti-
ton. The decision of the circuit court was
therefore, reversed and the case remanded
In the Kentucky case a like opinion was
rendered as to the attempt to consolidate the
Louisville & Nashville with the c. & o. s. w
road. The opinion of the court of appeals of
Kentucky, enjoining the consolidation was
affirmed. The broad question involved in the
Louisville & Nashville case was the right of
one railroad company to acquire control eth
er by purchase or consolidation of the prop
erty of another company, whose lines are
parallel with its own, the Louisville & Nash
vile and Chesapeake & Ohio Southwestern
lines being parallel between Louisville KY,
and Memphis, Tenn. The constitution of Ken
lucky, recently adopted, prohibits purchase
under such conditions; the suit as originally
brought by the commonwealth of Kentucky
asked for an injunction against such proceed
Ing, invoking the constitution. The Kentucky
court granted a perpetual injunction. and
when the case was taken to the Kentucky
court of appeals the decision of the court be-
low was affirmed.
The decision of the court was naturally a
high feather in the cap of Attorney General
Childs. who took direct issue with the posi-
ton of Judge Sanborn, and when the news
was brought to him by Minneapolis evening
newspaper man that the decision was in his
favor he was quite elated. For. while he
had been unable to convince himself that
Judge Sanborn could by any possibility be
right, the eminent standing of the court led
him to conservative basis and he had built
while have really expected this decision.
/ have net failed to realize that the court
might adopt the view reached by Judge San
born That there was room for difference
of opinion is shown by the fact that two of
the judges dissent.
"Not having had opportunity to read the
text of the decision 1 cannot of course say
uron which grounds it is vested or speak as
to the scope of its application. I have no
doubt, however, that it is held that no power
to consolidate conferred either by the
charter act of 1856 any subsequent legisla-
tion general or special. The decision will
be hailed far and wide as most salutary
adjudication of the question involved and
meet with widespread popular Endorsement.
No case ever arose in the Northwest which
has excited deeper interest, and am heartily
glad that the outcome is so in accord with
the general sentiment. 1t. means that thre
viii; be no consolidation between the Great
Northern and the Northern Pacific railway
companies, but that their respective lines
must continue to be operated under separate
managements. 1t is as 1t should be-