The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-04-08
OPENS MERGER CASE
STRATTON ASKS PEP11rsSrox ro
FILE COMPLAINT IN ST.
PREME COURT
WOULD BEGIN SUIT AT ONCE
Copies of Bill by State of Washing
ton Are Submitted, and Defend
ants Briefs Are Also
Admitted.

WASHTNGTON.Aprl Attorney Cen
GRAZ Stratton, Of the state of Washing
IN tooay brought to the attention of the
| Cn4eu states supreme court the dpsire. ~
thdI state to bring suit to prevent +ha
merger OF the Northern Pacific ana +ha
Great Northern railroads bv MOVING for
leave to file a bill of complaint on behalr
or the state versus the Northern Paciff,
the Great Northern Railroad companies
and the Northern Securities COMPANY
In making the motion Mr.. Stratton satd
that counsel for the defendants was pres
ent and prepared to proceed with an oral
argument if the court was Drepare5 to
near them, adding that the case involves
the same questions as were presented in
the minnesota case. He added that an
immediate hearing was desired because It
would save another trip from the state Of
! Washington.
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 nearing, but the court declined to
announce an immediate decision on that
point The chief justice said however,
that an early response would be given
In connection with his motion or leave
TO file his bill of complaint. Mr. STRAIT
| ton submitted copies of his bill and a
brief in its support. To avoid the OBJ
jecions under which this court refused
TO entertain the bill q the state of Min
neSota against the Northern Securities
company, the state of Washington has
made the Great Northern Railway COM
| pahy ana the Northern Pacific Railway
company, defendants
Inc Dill asks for a general order OF
restraint ana injunction and is a general
recital of the acts of merger which II is
claimed are in cOntravention Of the laws
OF the state of Washington prohibiting
the consolidation Of competing lines ~
railroads. 1t is charged specifically that
| the Northern Securities company was
! organized solely for the purpose Of carry
ing and accepting the designs. agreement
and plans Of James j. Hill and J. Pierpont
Morgan, and their associate stockholders.
! TO effect consolidation of the property.
| railway lines corporate powers and fran
chises Of the Great Northern ana North
ern Pacific Railway companies respective
| ~, through the Northern Securities COM
pany."
Alleges 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
railway companies, was to terminate and
| to be converted into an interest in the
property and franchise Of the Northern
| securities company.
1.-The individual stockholders were no
longer to hold an interest in, or draw
| their dividends from the earnings of either
| OF said railway companies, but rather
! from the earnings of both systems col
lected and distributed by such holding
| corporation. That the defendant the
| Northern Securities company Il not only
exercising the right of ownership of sucn
| stock, but also debating the management
of said railway companies"
The interest OF the state in maintain
| ing independent lines Of road is fully
! set forth, and in the accompanying BRIEF
| the legal reasons in support OF the ac-
ton are set out in detail. Among these
| Is the plea that unless the supreme court
| assumes jurisdiction the state Of Wash
| lngton is without a forum to which the
| controversy may be presented.
/ The ETicI. referring to the former case
| brought by the state Of MINI es0td says:
| Under authority Of the recent de-
| cision of the court in the State of Min
| nesota vs.. Northern Securities COMPANY
u Is clear that the Northern Pacific and
| Great Northern Railway companies are
! necessary parties defendant, not only i'm
this, but any other court having equita-
! Die jurisdiction in an action brought by
! the state Of Washington against the
! Northern Securities company. This rule
| bars the state of Washington from main
| tanning an action in the courts Of New
Jersey, for the reason that said railway
! companies are not within the state for
!
/ ton oyer them.
Washington Courts POwerIess.
"An action against the Northern Sc
/ eurities company Will not lie in the state
! OF Washington, for the reason that the
courts are powerless to obtain jursdic-
ton over its person
Careful inquiry has been made, and
| It has been found that the state OF New
! YORK IS the only state in the nation in
1 winch each of said parties defendant has
j designated agent uDOp which court
! process may be served and it is clear
! that such an action against the defend
| ants (all residents of the state of New
! YORK cannot be maintained therein, un-
] der section 1880 OF the New Yorr code
| Of civil procedure"
! Two briefs We're filed I'm opposition to
| the prayer of the complaint, one of these
/ being by George II. Young, M d. Gro
/ Yer and G. w Bum, and the other by
! former Attorney General John w. Griggs.
/ Mr.. Griggs takes the position that the
! Dill or complaint does not present case
of a controversy Of a civil nature which
under the constitution and laws Of the
! United States is justifable In this court:
! that 1t is a suit to enforce the local law
and policy Of a state, whose right to
! make laws and to enforce them exists
| only within itself and by means Of it's
| own agencies and Is limited to its own
! territory; and that whatever the law
| Of the state of Washington is upon tho
! subject Of the consolidation Of railroad
| corporations, 1t Is a municipal or police
! law and not one comforting rights Of a
! proprietary or cOntractive nature" lie
4 contends that neither the courts Of tine
! United States or any other Jurisdiction
! outside Of the state of Washington viii
! lend their aid to the enforcement Of the
! police laws of Washington"
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
4 bill Of complaint as having been done by
! the Northern Securities company and its
/ TWO railway companies was in the ex-
I erc!sa of q, usually universally conceded
4 right IN and over personal prOperty-the
/ right to buy, sell hold and vote stock,
and to pay and receive dividends thereon.
! The suggested injury that Is feared is adj
/ mitted to spring from the fact that one
! person, or a number Of persons who are
! Of one purpose. hold a majority or con-
! trolling interest in the stock Of two com
/ petinG lines Of railway thing not for
/ hidden by the law of Washington or any
! other state. Tt is certainly an astOnish-
| ing proposition that Washington has a
! right to complain that a New Jersey cor
! poration has acquired a majority OF the
I capital stock Of two railroad companies,
! one a Wisconsin corporation and the other
| a Minnesota company, merely because
! the railroad companies operate roads in
| Washington"
Only Companies Restrained.
Mr.. Griggs also makes the assertion
defendants has combined or made any
| contract Tor any of the pul poses charged
Quoting the law Of Washington bearing
on this point he says:
Nothing in any of these sections for
! bids one person, whether a natural per-
I