The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-04-08
Attorney General of Washington
State Asks Permission TO File
Bill Of Complaint.
TWO BRIEFS IN OPPOSITION
ONE FILED BY FORMER ATTORNEY
GENERAL j. w. GRIGGS.
Several Cases Decided by the Court,
Two Relating to ApprOprin-
ton Of Streams of Water.

to-day brought to the attention of the
United States Supreme Court the desire of
that State to bring suit TO prevent the
merger of the Northern Pacific and the
Great Northern railroads by moving for
leave to file bill of complaint on behalf
of the State versus the Northern Pacific,
the Great Northern companies and the
Northern Securities Company. In making
the motion Mr.. Stratton said that counsel
for the defendants was present and pre-
pared to proceed with an oral argument,
and the court was prepared TO hear them,
adding that the case involves the same
questions as were presented in the Min
nesota case. He added that an immediate
hearing was desired, because it would save
another trip from the State of Washing
ton. Ex-Attorney General Griggs, who was
present as the representative of the rail-
road companies, acquiesced in what Mr..
Stratton said as to the desirability of an
early hearing, but the court declined to an
nounce an immediate decision on that
point. The chief justice said however, that
early response would DE given
In connection with his motion for leave
to file his bill of complaint Mr.. Stratton
submitted copies of his bill and a brief in
which this court refused to entertain the
bill of the State of Minnesota against the
Northern Securities Company the State of
Washington has made the Great Northern
Railway Company and the Northern Pacific
Railway Company defendants The bill
asks for general order of restraint and
injunction, and is a general recital Of the
acts of merger which it is claimed are in
Washington prohibiting the consolidation
of competing lines of railroad. 1t is charged
specifically that 1.-The Northern Securities
Company was organized solely for the pur-
pose of carrying and accepting the designs,
agreement and plans of James j. Hill and
j. Pierpont Morgan and their associate
stockholders to effect a consolation of the
property, railway lines. corporate powers
and franchises of the Great Northern and
Northern Pacific Railway companies re-
spectively through the Northern Securities
Company"
ALLEGED CONSPIRACY.
This combination is characterized as a
conspiracy" and it is asserted that the
interest of the individual stockholders in
the property and franchise of the two rail
way companies was to terminate and to be
converted into an interest in the property
and franchise of the Northern Securities
no longer to hold an interest M or draw
their dividends from the earnings of either
Of said railway companies. but rather from
the earnings of both systems. collected and
distributed by such holding corporation
That the defendant. the Northern Securities
Company. is not only exercising the right
of ownership of such stock, but also die
tatlng the management OF said railway
companies"
The interest of the State in maintaining
independent lines of roads is fully set
forth, and in the accompanying brief the
legal reasons in support of the action are
set out in detail. Among these is the plea
that unless the Supreme Court assumes
jurisdiction the State of Washington is
without a forum to which the controversy
may be presented.
The brief. referring to the former case
brought by the State OF Minnesota, says:
Under the authority of the recent decision
of this court in the State of Minnesota VS.
the Northern Securities Company, it is clear
that the Northern Pacific and the Great
Northern Railway companies are neces-
sary parties defendant, not only in this but
any other court having equitable jursdic-
ton, in an action brought by the State of
Washington against the Northern Securities
Company.
This rule bars the State of Washington
from maintaining such an action in the
courts of New Jersey. for the reason that
said railway companies are not within the
State for the purpose of giving the court
jurisdiction over them. An action against
the Northern Securities Company will not
lie in the State OF Washington, for the rea-
son that the courts are powerless to OBJ
tain jurisdiction over its person. Careful
inquiry has been made and ii has been
found that the State of New York is the
only State in the Nation in which each of
said parties defendants has designated an
agent upon whom court processes may be
served. and IL is clear that such an action
against the defendants Gall being nonresi-
dents of the State of New York; cannot be
maintained therein, under Section 1850 of
the New York code of civil procedure"
MR.. GRIGGS'S BRIEF.
Two briefs were filed in opposition to
the prayer of the complaint, one of these
being by Messrs. George b. Young. NJ. D
Grover and c. w Bum, and the other by
former Attorney General John w. Griggs.
Mr.. Griggs takes the position that the bill
of complaint does not present a case of a
controversy Of a civil nature which under
the Constitution and laws of the United
States is justifiable in this court; that il is
a suit to enforce the local law and policy
of n State, whose right to make laws and
TO enforce them exist only within itself
and by means of it's own agencies and is
whatever the law of the State OF Wash.
ington is upon the subject of the cOnsolida-
tiOn of railway corporations, IL is a munic-
ipal or police law, and not one comforting
rights of proprietary or contractuaI ma
ture." He contends that neither the
courts of the United States nor of any
other jurisdiction outside of the State OF
Washington will lend their aid to the en-
forcement of the police laws of Washing
ton"
He points out that none of the acts COM
planned OF is alleged TO have been done
within the jurisdiction of the State of
Washington, and says: Every specific
thing charged in the bill OF complaint as
having been done by the Northern Secur-
tiles Company and its stockholders and by
the stockholders of the two railway com
panies was in the exercise of a usual uni
versally conceded right i'm and over per
sonal property-the right TO buy sell hole
dividends thereon. The suggested injury
that is feared is admitted TO spring from
the fact that one person or a number of
persons who are of one purpose hold a
ma tority or controlling interest i'm the
stock OF two competing lines of railway
thing not forbidden by the law of Wash
ington or any other State. 1t is Certainly
an astonishing proposition that Washing
ton has a right TO complain that a New
OF the capital stock of two railroad com
panies, one a Wisconsin corporation and
the other a Minnesota company merely
because the railroad companies operate
roads in Washington"
Mr. Griggs also makes the assertion that
''as matter OF fact none of the defend
ants has combined made any contract
for any of the purposes charged Quoting
the laws of Washington bearing on this
sections forbids one person. whether a
natural person or a corporation. from ac-
curing a majority of the stock in two
competing railroad companies The prohi-