New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1896-04-01

the Northern Pacific, as was sought to
be accomplished. Justices Field and
Brewer dissented in the case
What the Pearsall Case Decided.
The case of Pearsan versus the Great
Northern Railroad company came to
the supreme court from the circuit
court of the United States for the dis
trict Of Minnesota. It was a bill in
equity filed by Pearsan as stakeholder
in the Great Northern company, against
the company, under the laws of the
territory and the State of Minnesota, to
enjoin it from entering into an agree
ment with the Northern Pacific Rail-
road company under which the prop.
erty and franchises of the Northern Pa.
cific Railroad company were to be pur-
chased. 1t appears that the Great
Northern was originally incorporated
under the name of the Minneapolis and
St. Cloud Railway company. The Or
iginal charter granted the road the
right to connect with any railroad run
ming in the same general direction,
and to consolidate its stock or franchise
with any other railway and the ques.
ton presented to the supreme court
was whether the company could be de-
prived of this right by a subsequent act
of the state legislature inhibiting the
consolidation, lease or purchase by any
railway of the stock, property or fran
chise Of any parallel or competing line,
the legislature having passed such
law in 1874.
Decided That It Could.
The court answered the question in
the affirmative. The court says that it
was competent for the legislature to
limit the charter and to "declare that
the power it had conferred upon the
Minneapolis and St. Cloud company to
consolidate its interest with other of
similar corporations, should not be
exercised so far as applicable to parallel
competing lines, inasmuch as it is for
the interest of the people that there
should be competition between parallel
railroads.
ssThe legislature, it continues ''has
the right to assume in this connection,
that neither road would reduce its
tariff to destructive or improbable
figure Or to a point where either
road would become valueless to it's
stockholders and the object of the act
in question is to prevent such combi-
nation between the two as would con-
stitute a monopoly"
In the Kentucky case like opinion
was rendered as to the attempt to con-
solidate the Louisville and Nashville
i 10 1-o
road. The opinion Of the court of ap-
peals Of Kentucky, enjoining the con-
solidation, was affirmed.
State Charters Are Supreme.
The broad question involved in the
| Louisville and Nashville case, was the
right of one railroad company to &C
quire control either by purchase or con-
solidation, OF the property of another
company, whose lines are parallel with
its own, the Louisville and Nashville
and Chesapeake and Ohio Southwestern
companies lines being parallel between
Louisville, KY, and Memphis, Tenn.
The constitution Of Kentucky recently
adopted, prohibiting purchase under
such conditions and the suit as origin
| ally brought by the commonwealth of
Kentucky asked for an injunction
against such proceeding, invoking the
constitution The Kentucky court
granted a perpetual injunction and
when the case was taken to the Ken
lucky court Of appeals, the decision OF
the court below was affirmed
The case was brought to the United
States supreme court by the railroad
company upon a writ of error, the com
/: pany alleging an entire disregard OF
the provisions Of its charter granted BY
the state in 1850, long prior to the
adoption of Kentucky S present consti-
! tuition, which, IN explicit terms. with
out saying anything about parallel
lines, gave the right to purchase and
! hold any road constructed by any com
| pany." The state court held that the
| state had a right to repeal or modify
the charter. The United States supreme
court as one ground Of its opinion, de.
clared that the Chesapeake and Ohio
| Southwestern under its charter, had nc
right to sell to ascompe betting company.