The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1896-03-31


legislature Of 1874, be consolidated with
the Northern Pacific, as was sought to
he accomplished. Justices Field and
Brewer dissented in the case.
What the Pearsall Case Decided.
The case of Pearsall versus the Grea
Northern Railroad company came to
the supreme court from the circuit
court of the United States for the dis
! trict of Minnesota. 1t was bill in
equity fled by Pearsall as stockholder
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.
tion 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 a
law in 1874
Decided That 1t 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
consohdate its interest with otherof
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.
"The 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 point where either
road would become valueless to it's
stockholders and the object of the act
n question is to prevent such combi-
hation between the two as would con.
Ftitute monopoly"
In the Kentucky case like opinion
VAS rendered rs to the attempt to con.
o1i lot hn
4 with the Chesapeake and Southwestern
load. The opinion Of the court Of ap.
beals Of Kentucky, enjoining the con.
olidation, was affirmed.
State Charters Are Supreme.
The broad question involved in the
Louisville and Nashville case, was the
right of one railroad company to ac-
huire control either by purchase or con.
/ toli dation, of the property Of another
company, whose lines are parallel with
It's own, the Louisville and Nashville
| Ind Chesapeake and Ohio Southwestern
Companies lines being parallel between
louisville, Ky, and Memphis, Tenn.
he constitution OF Kentucky recently
dopted. prohibiting purchase under
yuch conditions and the, suit as origin.
klly brought by the commonwealth of
Kentucky asked for an injunction
lgainst such proceeding, invoking the
fonstitution. The Kentucky court
GRANTED Il perpetual injunction and
when the case was taken TO the Ken
lncky court Of appeals, the decision of
Ihe court below was affirmed.
The case WAS brought to the Unil ed
states supreme court by the railroad
Dmpany upon writ OF error. the com
Ikany alleging an entire disregard Of