Omaha daily bee., 1902-04-15
Attorneys for Defense Deny Jurisdiction
Of the Federal Tribunal,
DECLARE THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR IT
Justice White in Reply Denies Precedent
for the Merger.
FULLER THINKS STATE CONTROL sOLVEsIT
Counsel for Northern Securities, Great
Northern and Northern Pacific
Claim Rights Of Individuals
for Their Corporations.

WASHINGTON. April i4-The United
States supreme court today heard srgu
ments In the case OF the state Of Washing
ton against the Northern Securities com
psuy and the Northern Pacific and Great
Northern railroads involving the merger
Of the two railroads. Attorney General
Btratton appeared for the state and made
the opening argument. eontending that this
court is the only one that can properly
hear the case and that II 1t refuses to hear
It there is no tribunal to which the state
can apply for the redress Of wrong.
He was frequently interrogated by mem
bers OF the court. Justice White asked
why the state court did not pass law OF
its own 70 cover the case, and MIR. STRAIT
ton replied that he thought the state had
that fright, but that 1t also is entitled to
an independent proceeding for injunction.
In greply to Justice Harlan he said that
the state might, OF course proceed against
either Of the railroad companies for dam
ages, but that the Northern Securities
company could not be thus reached in a
state court. The chief justice wanted to
know II the state could not institute
suit and give the securities company a
chance to come in.
Roads Are Interstate.
"Yes," was the reply, "but II won't come
In" He agreed with a suggestion made
by Justice Brewer that the railroads in
yolved are interstate roads and that on
this account IT was competent TO appeal
10 the national authorities.
Summing up the case Mr.. stratton said
the question presented is whether the
stock and power Of control of two gigantic
lines OF railway. traverslng the states OF
Washington, Montana, North Dakota and
Minnesota, may be consolidated so as to
create a monopoly In railway trafhc therein,
in defiance of the laws of such, or whether
a corporate entity can be created and used
for the express purpose Of overdrawing
the constitutional enactments of a number
of sovereign states and thus accomplish
indirectly that which this court has de-
cided could not be done directly.
Charles w. fsifnn md former Attorney
General Griggs appeared for the railroad
companies and the securities company. Mr..
Eunn contended that II the injunction
SHOULD be granted as prayed for by the
state OF Washington the securities COM
pany would be compelled to sell it's stock
IN at least one Of the railroad companies.
some Power as Individuals.
He contended that the securities COM
pany had the same power to acquire, own
and vote stock as any natural person would
have and could not be enjolned. Surely
no man could be limited in his holding of
stocks and securities, but whatever power
3 state might have to control the holdings
Of its own citizens 1t could not be reason
lbly contended that 1t could have any in
huence on citizens natural or artificial OF
bther states like the securities company.
Surely there was no law of the state OF
Washington. nor was there any common
law that could limit the holdings of an in,
dlvidual in this respect and II an individual
could hold without limitations 80 also
could combination Of individuals. More
ever. II there could be such a Limitation 1;
was for the states themselves to apply 1t.
He also contended that there was no prece-
dent allowing one state to go into another
state for the enforcement OF its own laws
and said that Washington was undertake :
ing to do Just that In this proceeding To
do this would be violation OF the four
teenth amendment to the constitution OF
the United States.
MIR. Bum contended that II the state OF
Washington could come TO this court foI
relief 1t could go to the courts OF New Jer-
Bey for It. He said there was no precedent
for such a proceeding.
Reverses the Rule.
Justice White suggested that likewise
there was no precedent for such enormous
combines as that complained Of In thiI
case. To this suggestion Mr.. Bum sait
that while this might be true. they mus
be proceeded with by legislation II at all
Mr.. Griggs argued that the power OF the
supreme court cannot be invoked by on,
state TO enforce the police laws OF another
and contended that in this instance Wash
ington Is attempting TO control the corpor
ate action Of three companies, neither o
which pTetends to derive It's existence o.
authority from that state. He followed
Mr.. Bum, in the contention that ther,
could be no more restriction on the holding
OF stock by a corporation than on its hold
ing by an Individual, adding that the prin
ciple Is in no wise affected by the amour
involved. The mere suggestion was, h
said. a refutation Of the erroneous asser
tion implied in the bin Of complaint.
No violation OF state Law.
He argued that no act complained o
would take place in Washington. Their
was no possibility OF the violation Of
state law, because Washington had no lay
on the subject. II was only argued tina
public opinion would be violated, but thi
court was not here to sustain the demand
OF public opinion OF one state against tn
citizens OF another. The states should b
left TO provide their own remedies. lie
Washington provide its own laws and tr
TO do something itself instead Of paradin
down here ard asking this court to d
something that 1t has no right TO do.
In his rejOinder, Mr.. stratton said ths
the entire argument on behalf OF the de
isndant corporations had turned on the cor
tention that Washington could not proese
against them because OF their noAresidenc'
whereas. he urged that this very oiroum
stance was what gave the federal suprem
court jurisdiction. Without this inteTpos
--tion the state was, he repeated, withoI
remedy.
what About state OwnershipF
What do you think OF state owner
EhipG Could not the state take possessio
OF the roads and run themG' asked II
chief justice.