Pullman herald. [volume] (Pullman, W.T. [Wash.]) 1888-1989, 1896-04-04
SupIEME COURT DECIDES THE
GREAT NORTHERN CASE.
sIirL.r Chnrne tor - short Than II
long Haul IL Also Against
the. Law.

creme court today in the case OF 1Ho9
Pearsall vs.. the Great Northern iEali-
way Company and Louisville N Nash
willie Railway Company vs.. the common
wealth of kentucky, as to rights or par
eiiel and competing railway lines 10
consolidate, holding in the case OF the
Great Northern that it could not under
its charter, and in opposition 10 the act
OF the Minnesota legislature of 1874, be
consolidated with the Northern Pacific,
as was sought to be accomplished.
The case of Pearsall Us. the Great
Northern company came to the supreme
court from the United States circuit
court for the district of Minnesota. 1t
was bill in equity filed by Pearsall as
a stakeholder in the Great Northern
against the laws Of the territory and
state Of Minnesota to enJoin 1t from
entering into an agreement with the
Northern Pacific Railway Company UNI
der which the property and franchises
of the Northern Pacific Railway Com
pany were to be purchased. 1t appears
that the Great Northern was originally
incorporated under the name of the
Minneapolis & ST. Cloud railway. The
original charter granted the company
the right to connect with any railway
running in the same general direction
and to consolidate it's stock or fran
chse with that of any other railway
and the question presented to the SUI
preme court was whether the company
could De deprived of this right by a
subsequent act of the legislature inhib-
iting the consolidated lease or pur-
chase by any railway of the stock prop
erty or franchise of any parallel or
competing line, the legislature having
passed such a law in 1874 The court
answered the question in the atiirma-
tive. The court says it was competent
for the legislature to limit the charter
and to declare that the power it had
conferred upon the Minneapolis & ST
cloud company to consolidate it's in
terests with other similar corpora
tfUns should not be exercised SO far as
applicable to parallel competing lines
tnasmuch as it is for the interest of the
people that there should be competition
between parallel roads"
THE legislature" ii continues, "has
the right to assume in this connection
that neither road would reduce it's tariff
TO destructive or Improbable figure
or to a point where either road would
become valuless to its stockholders and
the act in question is to prevent such
"a combination between the two as
would constitute a monopoly"
Continuing, the court. through Jus
tice Brown said: whether the con-
solidation of competing lines will neces-
sarily result in an increase of rates
or whether such consolidation has gem
orally resulted in a detrment to The
public is beside the question.
Whether it has that effect or not It
certainly puts it in the power OF the
consolidated corporations TO give it
that effect-in short, puts the public
ut the mercy of the corporations.
'"There is and has been for the past
800 years, both in foreign countries and
this country, a popular prejudice
against monopolies in general, which
has found expression in innumerable
acts of legislation. We can not say
that such prejudice is not well found
ed. 1t Is a matter of which the legisla-
ture is entitled to pass judgment. There
are, moreover thought to be Other
dangers to the moral sense of the com
munity incident to such great aggrega
tons of wealth, which, though indirect
are even more insiduOus in their intiu
ence and such as have awakened feel
ings of hostility which have not faile(
TO find expression in Legislative acts.
"The consolidation of those tW
great corporations would" said III
court, "unavoidably result in giving tn
Great Northern a monopoly of all traf
nc in the northern half of the state o
Minnesota, as well as all transconti
mental traffic north of the line of tn
Union Pacific. against which publ
regulations would be but a feeble pre-
lection"
y THE act of the Legislature of 1874,