Evening star., 1902-01-28
PROPOSED RAILWAY MERGER
ARGUMENT IN THE SUPREME
COURT.
Former Attorney General GrfgEs Fol-
lows Mr.. Guthrie for the North
ern Securities Company.

L
| United States Supreme Court yesterday
| afternoon Mr.. Guthrie for the Northern
| Securities Company quoted mahy authori-
| ties in support of his contention. He said
| there is no Minnesota statute prohibiting
| copartnerships or individuals from acquir-
| ing and holding stocks of parallel or COM
peting railroad companies. This he consid-
| cred most significant in view of decisions
| by the United States court in other cases.
If" he said, .it be urged that the word
| managers contained in the act of 1874 ap-
| plies to James ]. Hill, William P. Clough
| and others who were directors or officers Of
| the Great Northern Company and that they
| could not individually, while acting as man
| ayers, acquire the stock of parallel OF
| competing company, it may be said tnat
| the act of 1881 omits all reference to man
I ayers, and that this subsequent act i'm
| piled they repealed the prior act which COW
cred exactly the same subject matter AT
| ay rate these gentlemen and numerous 9TH
ers whose names are mentioned in the bill
| of complaint are not parties. TO TINS suit
Their rights cannot be adjudicated or their
acts enjoined in their absence. They We're
omitted because to make residents of MIN
neSota parties defendant would have ousted
the court of jurisdiction. 1t will strike the
court novel proposition that the legal
right of the Northern Securities Company
to acquire and hold property under the
laws of New Jersey is to be tested and de-
termined by the individual character or re-
lationS of one or more of her stockholders
or directors"
He asserted that the alleged threatened
injury to the proprietary interests of the
state of Minnesota, alleged in the blIl Of
complaint, is altogether remote and fanci-
full.
EX-AttOrney General Griggs Follows
Former Attorney General Griggs fol-
tba- f;a.
Company. He said the fundamental error
of the state of Minnesota in this proceeding
is in making claim to the assistance of this
court in the exercise of its sovereignty.
AS for the statutes which the state seeks to
have enforced they were only prohibitive
of acts conceived to be harmful, and at best
the command of the state could not be con-
Sidered effective outside the state. The
public police law of one state could not
be extended to another state.
He had never before heard of a case in
which state had called upon the federal
judiciary to support its own state laws in
matters not coming under federal jurisdic-
tion. 1t was not claimed that any damage
had occurred and whether any would ever
follow would depend upon the conduct of
the railroads themselves, the roads far
having taken no such steps as the state
profeSSed to fear.
The act, if enforced at all, must be en-
forced in the state. The case was entirely
case, the threatened damage there being of
a physical nature only
Concluding for Minnesota.
Concluding the argument for the state of
Minnesota Mr.. NJ. d. Mum said that the
law in controversy had been adopted to
protect the state against the consolidation
of railroad lines which mad been construct
ed by state aid He called attention to
the fact that the act not only prohibits the
consolidation of railroad companies, but
also of railroad franchises and stocks.
He contehded that the act was framed to
provide a remedy not only to the state in
it's individual capacity, but also to the citi-
zens of the state in their individual ca
pacity as we'll In fact, the act was
part of the charter contract when the rail
road corporations came into the state.
Consequently the state of Minnesota could
enforce it at any place He said the. Secur-
tiles Company could direct the affairs of
the two railroads from New Jersey, not
withstanding the effect would be. felt in
Minnesota The charge was that competi-
ton is and could be removed. Moreover
the directors of the Securities Company are
stockholders in the Northern Pacific and
the Great Northern Railroad Companies,
the effect being complete and perfect a
consolidation could be imagined. This
was to be accomplished entirely outside the
limits of the state, but it's effect would be
concentrated upon the state. Mr.. Mum
also attacked the combination as a monop
Oily anu DIS, therefore,, d nuisance uIueT IHe
common law. He likewise controverted the
idea set forth by the opposition counsel
that the Securities Company is merely an
investment company. He quoted the arti-
ces of Incorporation to show that the COM
pany would nave perfect control over the
railroads.
Questioned by Justice Shiras.
Justice Shiras asked what the effect upon
the management of the two roads would be
if the injunction prayed for should be
granted, and Mr.. Mum replied that the
control would revert to the original stock
holders. He said in reply to another ques-
tion that the Securities Company has in it's
possession S5 per cent of the stock of the
two railroad companies In reply to Chief
Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan he said it
would be impossible to secure relief in the
state courts. it would be impossible to
get jurisdiction the Securities Company
having no resident representative in Min
nesota. Furthermore, he assumed that the
directors of the two railroads would obey
the dictates Of the Securities Company as
the slave would obey the commands of his
master.
I When Mr.. Mum concluded the court took
the application under advisement.