The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-06-21
is NOT CONSOLIDATION
Lease by the B.. A. g. p. Of the
Stuart Branch IL Lawful.
OPINION is EXHAUSTIVE
Supreme Court Defines the Differences
Between Leasing and Consolidating.
Nothing in the Constitution :.
Prohibiting Leasing.

lndt tIttt u % III IN -
ton Of the state of Montana or in her
la WIS to prevent the Butte. Anaconda &
Pacific railway from leasing the Lac
of the Montana railway from
Stuart Junction to Anaconda Is the
essence of an elaborate opinion rem
dered by the supreme court at Helena
yes terday in the case of the state OF
Montana at the relation of G. h. No
Lar, attorney general, VS.. the Montana
railway and The Butte, Anaconda &
Pacific Railway company, proc sedings
Instituted by the attorney general to
have declared invalid and az no force
and effect the lease between the two
companies that was to become effective
MAY | of this year. The opinion OF the
court Is by far the most important
rendered in several months, with the
possible exception of the courts deci-
sion in the inheritance tax case. JUS
tioe Hunt prepared the opinion, In
which his associates concur. 1t is very
Ions and exhaustive in the extreme,
covering g. pages of typewriter manu-
script. and reviewing all OF the law
bearing upon the case. and at the same
time giving numerous citations from
authorities upon similar questions.
While the court holds that ire H.. A.
& v. can lease the II miles of road
without interfering with the constitu-
tional provision, IL concludes maj IL
would not be permissible for the roads
To be consolidated. ~
The contention of the attorney gen.
eral was that the roads are IHrallel
and competing. consequently the lease
would be prohibited by the ccnstitu-
ton. on the contrary, the attorneys
who presented the case in favor OF the
railroad. maintained that the facts es-
tabIished that the lines are not parallel
or connecting, but are continuous and
connected. and that the lease is but the
exercise of the powers granted 10 cor
porations by the laws Of Montana. un-
der which they are organized, and are
n: in conflict with the constitution.
The court the two PROPOSE
items presented by respective counsel.
and after holding that the Montana
Union and the Butte. Anaconda & Pa
cifc are competing lines between Butte
and Anaconda. devotes considerable
srace to the distinction tive con-
sol!dation and leasing. quoting from the
laws of several states and concluding
by defining a consolidation of corpora
lions TO be merging. union or amalga-
nation by which the stock of the two
corporations is made one. by which
their powers become the powers of one:
BY which their names are merged into
one. and by which the Identity OF two
practically runs into one In the pro-
posed lease the court fails to see a con-
solidation. and summing up its conclu-
sions dismisses the petition of the at
torpey general in the Following IAN
guage:
IT is therefore upon these princi-
pies that we have patiently and de-
liberately considered the case. Wha'
e~xigencies may have arisen which de-
TERED the trainers of the CONSTRUCTOR
from prohibiting reasonable leases py
one railroad of another. even though
they be competing lines. II Is not for us
to say. In Montana, as in many othei
states. the question of leasing rail
roads has been left to the legislature
which. in turn. has exercised it's power
The courts cannot determine "A policy
unless it is fairly to be inferred from
the language used. 1t may have beer
) believed that excessive restrictions
such as the denial altogether of tn
power to lease, were unyise and likel,
I to result i'm greater harm than good
or Il may have been the security Eel
by knowledge of the act that by sec
tion 3 of the constitution, which pro
hibited consolidation. all railroads ar
= deemed subject To legislative contro
I and subject to the power of the legis
lature tn regulate and control. by law
r the rates of transportation of passen
gers and freight by such companies n
common carriers from one point to an
' other in the state. Safety against ex
2 tortion Is always guaranteed by thi
I section. and II the two corporation
n parties to this contract or lease unde
consideration. should attempt to charg
q excessive rates. the power Ii in tn
legislature To protect the people. In tn
particular lease before us. provision !
made by covenant against increase
rates.
I'm conclusion. ii is our mature jude
ment that. while the constitutions
section quoted absolutely prohibit
consolidation. whether IL be direct q
indirect, still the difference between
lease and a consolidation is too plai
|; TO allow n Interpretation being pu
upon the constitutional section quote
whereby the power to lease is denie
by the prohibition against consolida
. ton"