The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-01-28
CASE OF THE
SECURITIES COMPANY
Continued From First Page.

OF the citizens of any other state, and
1t does not seek to do so, we ask this
court to turn to those facts of which it
has right to take judicial notice. and
1t will learn that six of these seven
states, through which these roads pass,
have constitutional or statutory inhibi-
lions similar to the one which the state
of Minnesota now seeks to enforce in this
action. We refer to this only for the
purpose of disclosing the far-reaching
effect of this tremendous consolidation
If the state of Minnesota cannot main
tain this action, we fail to see how it Is
possible for any state to enforce remedial
statutes adopted for the protection of
the interests of its citizens. as well as to
protect its individual rights.
If what is attempted to be done. here
can be successfully accomplished, the
states of this Union are powerless to
enforce such statutes. The national gov
eminent, under it's present constitutional
limitations, can enact no legislation
which will protect state commerce and
state traffic against such a nIonopolistic
consolidation as is referred to in this
bill. The only practical way the state
can protect itself is by the adoption of
legislation of the character sought to be
enforced in this action, and the only trl-
bunal in which that can be enforced I'M
der the circumstances disclosed in this
bill is the one to which we now appeal.
1t seems to us that there is controversy
between the state of Minnesota and the
defendant corporation-a citizen of the
state of New Jersey-which, under the
constitutional provision referred to, en-
titles the state of Minnesota to the pr1vi-
lege of the jurisdiction of this court; IN
fact this is the only judicial tribunal
in which the state of Minnesota can well
assert its claim and present its contro-
Versy against the defendant
REASON WHY COURT
HAS NO JURISDICTION.
w. D. Guthrie, for the Northern Sc
curties company, filed a brief with the
court outlining that company's position.
He contended that the bill of complaint
proposed to be filed on behalf of the
state of Minnesota does not present a
controversy of a civil and judicial nature
between state and a citizen of another
state justifiable in this court, and that
no state can call upon this court to
enforce its penal or police laws in ether
states. Hence this court is without
jurisdiction.
The bill asks the court, he says, to re-
strain by injunction a citizen of New
Jersey from doing there acts which are
entirely lawful according to her laws
and which are sanctioned by her statu-
tory policy, simply because those acts
violate or evade or tend to circumVent
the public or penal or police laws OF
Minnesota, the complainant state. Ihere
is, he continued, no suggestion that the
acts complained of are Rot entirely law
full in the state of New Jersey, or that
it is not within the corporate powers Of
the defendant corporation as an invest
ment company to acquire and hold the
stocks of railway companies
The sole ground of complaint is the al
legged violation in New Jersey of certain
enactments contained in the statutes of
Minnesota. Hence he contended that the
Injunction prayed for would be nothing
more or less than an order compelling
the securities company to obey In New
Jersey the laws of Minnesota.
He called attention to the fact that no
relief is sought against the Great North
ern Railway company or the Northern
Pacific although both are corporations
of the state Of Minnesota, and both,
therefore, within the jurisdiction of the
courts of that state. This was taken, ne
said. as a confession that neither Of these
corporations had sinned against the laws
or the constitution of Minnesota. he
pointed out that as neither of these COM
panies is a party to the suit, no relief
could be granted against them.
In conclusion, Mr.. Guthrie contended
for the continuance of the policy which
had prevailed, he said, during the his
tory of the government Of allowing each
state to control It's own affairs without
interference on the part Oh the federal
Judiciary.
NO LAW AGAINST
BUYING OF STOCKS
Mr.. Guthrie quoted many authorities in
support of his contention He said there
is no Minnesota statute prohibiting CO.
partnerships or individuals from acquir-
ing and holding stocks of parallel or
competing railroad companies rms ne
considered most significant i'll view o.
decisions by the United States courE IN
other
IF" he said, sit be urged thas the
word managers contained in the act Of
1874 applies to James j. Hill, William
p Clough and others who We're directors
or officers of the Great Northern COM
pany, and that they could not individ-
ually, while acting as managers, a2lulre
the stock of a parallel or competing
company, it may be said that the act
of 1881 on1its all reference to manage s.
and that this subsequent act nipple
the repeal Of The prior act, which covered
exactly the same subject-matter At any
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 were omitted because to make resi-
dents of Minnesota parties, defendant
would have ousted the court of jurist'lc-
ton.
cit will strike the court as novel
proposition that the legal rights of the
Northern Securities company to acquire
and hold property under the laws of
New Jersey is to be tested and deter
mined by the individual character or re-
1ations of one or more of her stockhold-
ers or directors
He asserted that the alleged threaten
ened injury to the proprietary interests
of the State of Minnesota alleged in the
bill of complaint is altogether remote
and fanciful.
FUNDAMENTAL ERROR
OF STATES CASE.
Former Attorney General Griggs fol-
lowed, also speaking for the Securities
company. He said the fundamental err
ror of the state of Minnesota in this pro-
ceeding is in making claim to the as
sistance of this court in the exercise Of
its sovereignty. AT best the command
of the state could not be considered eff
fectfYe outside the state. The public
political law of one state could not be
extended to another state. He never be-
fore had heard of a case in which a
state had called on the federal judiciary
to support its own state laws In mat
tiers not coming under federal Jurisdic-
tien-
1t was not claimed that any damage
had occurred and whether any ever
would follow would depend on the con-
duct of the railroads themselves, the roads
so far having taken no such steps as the
state profesSed to fear.
Concluding the argument for the state
of Minnesota, M. d. Mum said that
the law in controversy had been adopted
to protect the state against the conscllda-
ton of railway lines which had been con-
structed by state aid. He called atten-
ton to the fact that the act not only
prohibits the consolidation of railroad
companies, but also of railroad fran
chises and stocks.
Justice Shiras asked what the effect on
70f. T7o3T n 9lJoI of rAadS W01II6