The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1902-02-28
WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

The United States Supreme Court Mon
| day delivered its opinion in the case OF
the State of Minnesota VS.. the Northern
| Securities Company on the application OF
the State to file bill of complaint in that
court
| The opinion vas read by Justice Shras
and the molten fer leave to file the bill
was denied on the ground that this court
is without jurisdiction.
This is the case in which the State of
Minnesota made an effort to secure the
Intervention of the Supreme Court to pre-
vent the merging of the Northern Pacific
and the Great Northern Railroad Com
panies by injunction. Justice Shiras sum-
med up the judgment of the court as fol-
lows:
Gas the Great Northern and the North
ern Pacific Railway Companies are indis-
pensable parties, without whose presence
the court, acting as a court of equity, can
not proceed, and as our constitutional jur-
isdiction would not extend to the case if
these companies were made parties de-
PENDANT, the motion for leave to file the
proposed bill must be and is denied"
The opinion is voluminous one, but
the greater part of it is review of the
history of the case. Summarizing the
charge and the relief sought, Justice
| Shiras said:
'The case presented by the charges and
prayers of the bill is that the State of
Minnesota is apprchensive that majority
of the stockholders respectively of the
Great Northern Railway Company and of
the Northern Pacific Railway Company
| have combined and made an arrangement,
through the organization of a corporation
of the State of New Jersey, whereby such
a consolidation, or, what is alleged to
amount to the same thing, joint control
and management of the Great Northern
and Northern Pacific Railway Companies,
shall be effected as will operate to defeat
and overrule the policy of the State in
prohibiting the consolidation of parallel
and competing lines of railway, and there
fore appeals to court of equity to prevent
by injunction the operation and effect OF
such a combination and arrangement"
| He then stated that the question to be
determined was whether the parties to the
case were before the court, and he held
| that it was obvious 1.-The minority stock
! holders of the two railroad companies are
not represented in the controversy by the
companies whose stock they hold, and
their rights ought not to be affected with
out hearing, even if it were conceded
that majority of the stock in such com
panies, held by few persons, had assisted
in forming some sort of an illegal arrange.
ment. Moreover, it must not be over
looked that it is not the private interests
of stockholders that are to be alone con
sidered."
The opinion then continued:
"The directors Of the Great Northern
and Northern Pacific Railway Compani s
are appointed to represent and protect not
merely the private and pccuniary interests
of the stockholders but the rights of the
public at large, which is deeply concerned
in the proper and advantageous manage
ment of these public highways. 1t is not
sufficient to say that the Attorney General
or Governor or even the Legislature of the
State can be conclusively deemed to repre-
sent the public interests in such contro.
versy as that represented by the bill.
| Statn Sh y Mt, ri1 ha
comes a complainant in IL court of equity,
cannot claim to represent both sides of the
controversy. Not only have the stock
holders, be they few Or many, right to
| be heard through the officers and directors
whom they have legally selected to repre-
sent them, but the general interests of IL e
public, which might be deeply affected ly
| the decree of the court, are entitled to be
heard, and that, when the State is the COM
| plainant and in case like the present, can
only be effected by the presence of the raj
road companies as parties defendant.
Upon investigation it mi yht turn out
that the allegations Of the bill are well
| founded and that the State is entitled to
| relief or it might turn out that there is no
| intention or desi gn on the part Of the rail-
road companies TO form any animation
| in disregard of the policy of the State, but
that what is proposed is consistent with
that policy and advantageous to the COM
munties affected But in making such
investigation a court of equity must insist
that both sides of the controversy shall be
adequately represented and fully heard
when it appears to 4 court of equity