New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-04-15
ANTl-MERGER SUIT ARGUED
PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF WASHING
TON AND FOR THE NORTHERN
SECURITIES COMPANY


Washington April 1.-THE United States Su-
preYne Court to-day heard arguments in the case
of the State of Washington against the Northern
Securities Company and the Northern Pacific and
Great Northern railroads. involving the merger of
the two railroads. Attorney General Stratton APP
peared for the State and made the opening argu-
ment, conteuding that this court Is the only one
that properly hear the and if it refuses
to hear 1t there is tribunal TO which the State
apply for redress of wrong. He was fire.
quently interrogated by members of the court
Justice White asked why the State could not pass
a law OF its the case. and Mr.. STRAIT
ton replied that he thought the State had that
right, but that 1T also entitled to an indie
pendent proceeding for injunction. In reply to
Justice Harlan. he said that the State might. of
course proceed against either of the railroad COM
panies for damages. but that the Northern Securi-
ties Company could not be thus reached in a State
court The Chief Justice wanted to know If the
State could not institute suit and give the Seeurf-
ties company a chance to come in. Yes. was the
reply, +'but it won't come in. as has been made
manifest ir Minnesota" He agreed with sugges-
ton made by Justice Brewer that the railroads in
volved interstate roads. and that on this ac-
count it was competent to appeal to the nataohai
authorities
Summing I'D the case Mr. Stratton said the ques-
ton presented whether the stock and power
of control of two gigantic lines of railway travers
Ing the States of Washington, Montana. North
Dakota and Minnesota. may be consolidated. so as
to create a monopoly in railway traffic therein. IN
defiance Of the laws of SUCH or whether como
rate entity be created and used for the ex-
press purpose of overthrowing the constitutional
enactments of a number of sovereign States. and
thus accomplish indirectly chat which this court
has decided could not be dcne directly
Charles w. Bum and ex-Attorney General John
W. Griggs appeared for tie railroad companies
and the Securities company
ARGUMENTS FOR THE MERGER
Mr. Bum contended that If the Injunction should
be granted as prayed for by the State OF wash
ington the Securities company would be compelled
TO sell its stock in at of the railroad COM
panies. He asserted that the Securities company
has the power to acquire. own ana vote STOCK
as any natural person would have. and could not
be enjoined. No man, he held, could be limited IN
his holding of stocks and securities; but, Whatever
power a State might have to control the holdings
it's citizens, 1t could not be reasonably con-
that it could have influence on citizens
natural or artificial other States, like the Sc
curities company. There no law of the State
of Washington nor was there any common law
that could limit the holdings of individual and
If an individual could hold without limitation so
over II there could be such limitation, 1t was for
he Sat 6ere 10 no aps allowing
State to into another for the enforcement OF its
ing to do just that in this proceeding To do this
to ot the consitmtion Of # the the tinted States
Mr.. Bum contended that If the State of Washing
TO the Courts Of New-Jersey for it He said there
was precedent for such a proceeding. Justice
White suggested that likewise there prece
dent for such enormous combinations as that com
planned of in this case. To this Mr.. Bum replied
that while this might be true. they must be pro-
ceeded with by legislation. IL at all.
Mr.. Griggs argued that the power of the Supreme
Court cannot be invoked by one State to enforce
the police laws OF another. and commended that In
this instance Washington is attempting to control
the corporate action of three companies neither OF
which pretends to derive its existence authority
from that State. He followed Mr.. Bum ir the
contention that there could be no more restriction
an individual. adding that the principle Is in no.
wise affected by the amount involved. The mere
suggestion was. he said. refutation OF the err
He argued that act complained of would take
place I'm Washington. There possibility of
the violation of State law, because Washington
had no law the subject. 1t was only alleged
that public opinion would be violated but this
court not here to sustain the demands of
public opinion of State against the citizens of
their remedies. Let Washington provide its
own laws and try to do something itself instead
of parading down here and asking this court TO do
something that ii has no right to do:
In his rejonder. Mr.. Stratton said that the n
tire argument behalf of the defendant cor
pora atoms had turned on the contention that Wash
ington could not proceed against them because OF
their non-Tesidence. whereas he urged that this
very circumstance what gave the federal Su
preme Court jurisdiction. Without this interposi-
tion the State was ne repeated. without remedy.
not the State take possession of the roads and
them asked the Chief Justice
Mr. StrattOn replied that such remedy had not
occurred to him. What the State of Washington
binatfon of the two roads In third corporation
under the guise OF In iivdual. and he believed
that this would not be permitted. He closed with
the charge that the combination Is a violation of
the contract obligation of the railroad companies
implied in their acceptance of charters from the
State.