The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-09-01
Defense in Merger Suit Segun by
Minnesota Filing Its Answer
To-day.
Denies That Effect of Merger Will
Be to Destroy Competition
in Northwest.
SAYS Railroad Construction Will
Proceed as Beforehand
Grants Not Gifts.


brought by the state of Minnesota filed
their answers to- day in the office OF the
clerk of the United States circuit court.
The suit was brought by the state
against the Northern Securities company,
James j. Hill. as president of that COM
pany: James J. Hill Individual, the
Great Northern Railway company, and the
Northern Pacific Railway company
There Is one answer for the Securities
company and Mr. Hill in his character as
president and individually; one for the
Great Northern and one for the Northern
Pacific, three in all.
But the answer of the Securities COM
pany and Mr.. Hill set up all the matters
OF defense. and the railways In their
pleadings simply follow the Securities
company answer. with such changes OF
phraseology as are required by their di
verse characters.
The main answer. that of the Securities
company. is more than usually direct and
plain for a legal pleading.
It denies that the roads We're or are
parallel and competing; alleges that rates |
have been lessened since the organization
of the Securities company; that the roads
are not indebted to the state on account
of land grants; that the policy of the stae
has not been and is not hostile to the con-
BolidatiOn save through recent laws which
will not bear the light of a constitutional
scrutiny and of the United States laws;
that the two roads are quite as surely
competing now ever they We're: that
the retirement of the preferred stock Of
the Northern Pacific was consummated
pursuant to the articles Of incorporation
and an agreement understanding when
the stock was issued; and that holders
Of. the common stock were not barred
from purchasing; that Mr.. Hill never ex-
erc1sed any Of the privileges Of his office
during the short time he was director in
abe Northern Pacific company.
Inc Great oNrthern in it's answer adds
that William P. Clough resigned as vice
president or the Great Northern, and as a
member Of its board on the 23d day of
November, 1901. and Frederick Weyer-
hauser was made a director in his place;
That the term Of Jacob II. Schiff, di-
rector expired. and William B. Dean was
elected director In his place.
The Securities Answer.
A full abstract Of the Securities COM
pany answer Is as follows:
Defendants deny that the Northern Sc
cur1ties company has ever conducted any
business in Minnesota or had any place Of
business or owned any, property in the
tate and that the railways or property of
the Eastern Railway company Of Mime
sofa are operated by virtue of a lease to
the Great Northern Railway COMPANY
They also deny that James j. Hill was on
Nov. 10, 1901, or that he has ever been
the owner of.or had possession or con
troll of, or had said day; or at any time
subject to his direction or disposition
more than a majority or more than a por-
ton far less than a majority, or the capt.
tai stock OF the Great Northern COMPANY
1hey deny that the oNrthern Pacific Rail
way company ever became a corporation
Of or within the state Of Minnesota or
that 1t ever became subject to the laws
thereof, except by filing copy of its
articles with the secretary Of state and
complying with the statutes rela ting to the
admission to the safe Of railway COM
panies organized under the laws of other
states. They also deny that the North
ern Pacific cOmpany's lines have since the
organization Of the Securities company
been operated subject to the direction or
control of the officers of that company
and deny that the Northern Pacific COM
pany. when the bill was fled or at any
time since. have been the persons stated
in said bill; on the contrary, the board of
directors Of said company was, when the
OIL was filed. and ever snceh as been
composed as follows: George F. Baker
Edward H. Hartman, VIM. P. Clough
brayton ives D. Willis James, John S.
Kennedy Daniel S. Lamont. VIM Rookie
Teller, Charles Steele Samuel Spencer
James Stilman. Eben B. Thomas Hamil-
ton Mex. Twonbly all Of New York CITY:
Charles S. Miller, St. Paul: Samuel Rea.
Of Philadelphia.
Deny That Lines Are Parallel,
They admit that cities and towns named
m the bill are points on each Of the two
lines Of railway, but deny that the lines
between these points are parallel or that
-the INES competed for freight or passen-
ger traffic between said points in anv
different manner or by any great ex-
tent prior to the formal ton of the Securi-
ties company than they have at all times
done since the formation of that company,
and will continue to do so in the future
They deny that the line Of the defendant
companies between the state of Mime
sofa and Puget Sound were, or are paral-
lei, or have ever been competing lines
except at a few points, at nearly all of
which points they competed and still COM
y pete with the lines Of other conpanies
y They deny that the defendant companies
have competed with each other for freight
or passenger traffic in any other or diff
g1erent manner or to any great extent than
hey have continually done since the for
nation Of the Securities company, and
Will continue to do so in the future. Thew
admit that the lines are the only lines
81 an single railway company traversing
east and west all the northern tier OF
( states west OF the Mississippi river. They
1 deny that these lines are the ONLY lines
4 crossing the state Of Minnesota and con-
+ Meeting the Pacific ocean by rail with
points In said state, that they are
the only lines connecting the territory
OF said northern tier Of states or the ter
iitoty thereto Dy rail- with the
Pacific. They admit that large quantities
OF swamp land were granted by the
United States to the state of Minnesota
but have no information as to what 2ouan.
tity, if any, Of said lands are now owned
by the state. nor as to the value, If any
Of such lands or any OF them, nor tt
what extent, II at all. the value or sala
bility Of value Of said lands depends up
on competition Of any kind between The
defendant railway companies or upon tn,
construction Of railway lines by both o.
either OF defendant companies. go.
They deny that further spur or brancl
lines built into territory adjacent to it!
railway or into new territory has been by
reason of rivalry between the companies
or that the construction of such spurs Of
branch lines has been or will be prevented
I or lessened or deferred or In any way AT
feeted by the formation Of the securities
company
i They deny that any of the matters al
"A Bleged In the bill have prevented or hind
" cred or will prevent or hinder the con
struct1on by the state or by anyone au
! thOriZ ed by the plaintiff lines Of ~,