The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1896-04-04
CONSOLIDATION IS KNOCKED
Great Northern and Northern Pa
cifc Cannot Merge.
The supreme Court Reverses tho
Circuit Court in the Case Brought
by 7. w. Pearsall, a Great
Northern Stockholders.

Washington March 30.-The effort OF
Thomas w. Pearsall. u stakeholder in
the Great Northern Railroad company,
TO prevent a consolidation of that COR
poration with the Northern Pacific rail-
read, had a successful issue today, when
MI. Justice Brown the opin-
Ion of the supreme court of the United
States.
The case came up from the circuit
court for the Eighth circuit, which
ruled against Pearsall. He commended
that the proposition to unite the two
systems was in violation of the law of
minnesota, enacted in 1874. which pro-
hibited the consolidation of competing
lines OF road, On the other hand 1t was
the contention of the railroad managers
that the law was a violation of the pro-
Visions In the charter of the Minnea-
polls and st. Cloud railroad, the orig
inal link If the Great Northern line,
authorizing 1t to lease or purchase other
lines OF the road.
The question before the supreme court
OF h United States. sai Justice
BROWN, was whether OIL not the law of
1874 was ar impairment of the vested
right of the Great Northern companies.
Discussing the meaning of the term of
vested right, the opinion stated that in
the view of the court, it did not extend
beyond q right acquired by or under ex-
ecuted contracts. 1t was within h
power of the legislature, under a gen
eral permission such as was expressed
in the Minneapolis and st. Cloud char
ter, to acquire other roads, to declare
that 1t shall not be used to acquire COM
peting lines and thus construct q mo-
nopoly, which for 800 years has been
held by the courts in England and this
country to be Odious and against public
policy. The judgment of the circuit
court was reversed IL the case re-
manded with instructions to proceed in
accordance with the opinion.
MIR. Justice Field and Mr.. Justice
Brewer dissented from the judgment of
the court.
Mr.. Justice Brown also read the opin-
ion of the court in a similar case of
the Louisville and Nashville Railroad
company VS.. the commonwealth of Ken
lucky, appealed from the court of APP
peals in that state. The Louisville and
Nashville company had arranged to
purchase control of the Chesapeake,
Ohio and Southwestern Railroad COM
pany, which would give 1t practical mo-
nopoly of the railroad business between
Louisville and Memphis and the state
brought suit for an injunction to pre-
vent the carrying out of the contract
on the ground lat it would be a VIOLA
ton of the law Of the state forbidding
the consolidation, by lease Dr. purchase
Of competing lines of road within the
state. The injunction was issued by
the Inferior court and sustained by the
court of appeals. This Judgment the
supreme court of the United States af-
firmed. The opinion declared 1t to be
the opinion of the court hat not only
was the Louisville n Nashville COM
pany forbidden to purchase, but. by the
constitution of Tennessee, of which the
Chesapeake. Ohio and Southwestern
was a citizen. 1t was incompetent to sell.
The conclusion of the court was concur
red in by Justices Brewer and White.