The age-herald., 1902-04-08
ANOTHER SUIT ID
 PREVENT MERCER State of Washington Asks for
 an Order of Restraint TWO BRIEFS IN OPPOSITION MT. Griegs, Railroad Counsel, Takes Position That Bill of ConpIaint
TWO BRIEFS IN OPPOSITION
MT. Griees, Railroad Counsel, Takes Position That Bill of Complaint Does Not Present Case of Con-
 troversy of Civil Nature.

Washington. April 7.-Attorney General Stratton of the State of Washington brought to the attention of the Supreme Court the intention of tha StSfe to bring suit to prevent the merger of the North ern Pacific and Great Northern Railroads by moving for leave to file a bill of com plaint on behalf of the State vs. the Northern Pacific Company. the Great Northern Railroad and the Northern Se- curites Company. He asked for an im- mediate hearing
 Attorney General Griggs, as the repre- sentative of the railroad companies. ac- quiesced in MT. Strattons plea for an early hearing, but the court declined to announce an immediate decision on that point. The chief justice said, however. that an early response would be given.
 To avoid the objection under which this court refused to entertain the bill of the State of Minnesota against the Northern Securities Company the State of Wash ington has made the Great Northern Railroad Company and the Northern Pa- cifc Railroad Company defendants.
 Asks for Order of Restraint.
 The bill asks for general order of re- straint and injunction, and Is general recital of the act of merger which, it is claimed, are in contravention of the laws of the State of Washington prohibiting the consolidation of competing lines of railroads.
 Two briefs were filed in opposition to the prayer of the complainant one or these being by Messrs. George B. Young, NJ D. Grover and c. w. Bum and the other by former Attorney General John W. Griggs.
 MT. Griggs takes the position that the bill of complaint does not present case of a controversy of a civil nature which. under the constitution and laws of the United States is justifiable in this court that it is a suit to enforce the local law and policy of a State whose right 10 make laws and to enforce them, exists only within itself and by means or US own agencies and Is limited to It's own territory and that whatever the law or the State of Washington is upon the sub feet of the consolidation of railroad cor porations, 1t Is a municipal or police law, and not one conferring rights Of pro- priotary or contractual nature
 The Suggested Injury.
 The suggested injury that is feared is
 
 one person or a number of persons who are Of one purpose, hold majority or controlling interest in the stock Of two competing lines of railroad, thing not forbidden by the law of Washington or any other state It Is certainly an aston ishing proposition that Washington has right to complain that a New Jersey corporation has acquired majority Of the capital stock of two railroad com panies one Wisconsin corporation and the other Minnesota company, merely because the railroad companies operate roads in Washington
 MT. Gr.ggs also makes the assertion that "as matter of fact none of the de- fendants has combined or made any con tract for any of the purposes charged. Quoting the laws of Washington bearing on this point he says: "Notning in any of these sections forbids one person, whether natural person CT corpora tion, from acquiring majority of the stock in two competing railroad com panies."