The Washington times. (Washington [D.C.]) 1901-1902, 1902-04-15

these proceedings the court should take
the ale cations of the complaint. and we
think that states sufficient cause OF &C
tion.
Mr.. Bunn's Argument.
After recess Mr.. c. w. Bum, of coun-
sci for the defendant railroad compa-
MES. opened the argument against grant
ing the motion for leave to file. II wash
ington had the right to maintain the
proposed bill. the State of Oregon had,
and all other States into or though which
the railroads ran, and the United States
certainly had the right. Were all these
to exercise that right, Mr.. Bum said,
no one could tell the confusion that would
result The argument for the bill, he
said. proceeded upon the theory that
corporation was responsible for the acts
of its stockholders and the object of the
bill was to restrain or prevent the sale
OF stock by one holder to another.
To Mr.. Justice Brewer, Mr.. Bum said
that If the bill presented matter OF
honest doubt the court should take cog
nizance of it. But if he could show, as
he believed he could, that 1t did not pre-
sent any ground upon which relief could
be founded, the court should not enter
tain the bill, and applications for leave
to file had been denied upon the original
presentation without going into the mer-
its OF the case
The bill, Mr. Bum went on, contained
no declaration that the railroads would
not furnish adequate facilities under the
new arrangement or that unreasonable
rates would be established. These were
the only requirements of the Washington
laws, and If they were not complied with
the State courts were amply qualified to
nnI fyria
bill was as to the transfer OF stock of the
railroad companies to the Securities Com
pany. and yet there was not single
statute in the Washington code defining
or regulating the qualifications of stock
holders, even in corporations organized by
and under its authority. The power of in
dividuals to purchase and acquire stock
had already been passed on by the court.
In the case of the Louisville and Nash
willie Railroad Company VS.. Kennedy 1t
was said 1.-The inhibition of the Constitu
ton is not against the sale to individuals,
though they may chance to be stockhold-
ers in a competing line, but against the
acquisition by railway in any form of a
parallel or competing line.
Previous Decisions.
In Pearsall VS.. the Great Northern Rail-
way Company, the court said: Doubtless
these stockholders could lawfully acquire
by individual purchase majority, or even
the whole Of the stock of the reorgan-
lied company. and thus possibly obtain
its ultimate control; but the companies
would still remain separate corporations.
with no interests, as such. in common.
This. though possible, would not be alto
gether feasible. and would require con-
siderable time for its accomplishment.
In a few years the two companies might
by sales of the stock SO acquired. become
completely discovered, and the interest Of
the stockholders OF each company thus
become antagoDistic
In these cases were involved a pro-
vision Of the constitution OF Kentucky
and a statute OF Minnesota. prohibiting
the consolidation of parallel and Compel
ing roads, broader and stronger in their
terms than the provision of the Washing
ton constitution relied on by Attorney
General Stratton.
And what was true OF individuals, Mr..
Bum asserted, was true as to firms or
corporations. Whatever it was lawful for
one man to do combination of individ-
nails might do. The notion that to do a
thing not forbidden by statute, but whSh
may produce the same, or some OF the
results as q thing which Is forbidden,
was illegal. because 1t did Indirectly thai
which the law forbade being done direct
ly. was responsible. Mr.. Bum said, for
some loose argument and decisions.
Rights of the State.
upon the question OF jurisdiction. Mr.
Bum said that under the decision Of the
court in the Pelican Insurance case the
state of Washington could not come into
the Supreme Court to have statute en-
forced which ii could not, on the settled
principles of public and international law
go into another State and have enforced
and in this regard II made no difference
whether the statute was penal or civil IN
its nature.
Discussing the provision OF the consti-
tuition of Washington forbidding trusts anc
monopolies in the state, which was re-
lied on in the bill Of the State, Mr. Bum
quoted a recent decision by the supreme
court of washington, which said that that
provision had no application to consoli-
dalton Of the street railway lines OF Seat