The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1902-02-25
HIGH COURT
FAV0RS ROADS
Denies MinneSOta'S Plea
| to File Suit.
SHIRAS DELIVERS OPINION
Great Northern and Northern
~ Pacific Case. i.f
State Will Fight consolidation-cor-
poration Formed Under Laws Of =
New Jersey-Will Not Stop
Further Action.
SHIRAS DELIVERS OPINION
State Will Fight Consolidation-Cor'
poration Formed Under Laws OF

ST. Paul Feb. 4.-The announcement
of the United States Supreme Court
decision against the application of the
State of Minnesota for leave to file a
suit against the Northern Securities Com
pany was received in this city today
without surprise.
President Hill Of the Northern Securi-
ties Company, only remarked it was nc
more than he had anticipated several
weeks ago. Governor Van SAINT and
Attorney General Douglas were also
averse to saying anything. 1t is known
however, that since the announcement
by United States Attorney General Knox
that he would bring suit against the
Northern Securities Company under the
Sherman act, the State officials here
have looked for just such decision.
Action by the federal officials will not be
allowed to stop further action by the
State of Minnesota.
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 Great Northern Railway Companies
by injunction. Justice Shiras summed ur
the judgment of the court as follows:
LAS the Great Northern and Northern
Pacific Railroad companies are indispen-
sible parties without whose presence
the court, acting as a court of equity
cannot proceed and as our constitutional
jurisdiction would not extend to the case
If those companies were made parties
defendant, the motion for leave to file
the proposed bill must be and is denied.
Justice Shiras said the case presented
is that the State of Minnesota is appre-
hensve that majority of the stock
holders respectively of the Great Northern
and Northern Pacific Railway Companie:
have combined and have made an ar.
rangement, through the organization OF
the corporation of the State of New Jer-
sey, whereby such consolidation or wha1
Is alleged to amount to the same thing
shall be effected as will operate to defea
and overrue the policy of the State ii
prohibiting the consolidation of parable
and competing lines of railway and there
fore had appealed to a court of equity
to prevent by injunction the operation
and effect of such a combination ant
arrangement. He then stated before tn,
court and he held that 1t was obvious tina
road companies are not represented II
the controversy by the companies whose
stock they hold and their representative!
ought not to be affected without hear
ing, even IL 1t were conceded that a ma
jority of the stock in such companies helf
by few persons had resulted in form
ing some sort of an illegal arrangement
Moreover 1t must not be overlooked thai
it is not the private intention of stock
holders that are to be alone considered.
The opinion then continued: Even {
State when she voluntarily becomes {
complainant in a court of equity cannot
claim to represent both sides of the con-
troversy. Not only have the stock
holders. be they few or many, a right tt
be heard through the officers and directors
whom they have legally selected to rep
resent them. but the general interests Of
the public which might be deeply affected
by the decree of the court are still en-
titled to be heard and that when thu
State or complainant, and in a case lik'
the present can only be affected by thu
| presence of railroad companies as partie:
| defendant.
when 1t appears to court of equity
that a case. otherwise presenting grounC
for the action cannot be dealt with be
cause of the absence of essential parties
ii Is usual for the court. while sustain
ing the objection. to grant leave to thu
complainant to amend by bringing ir
such parties. But when 1t likewise ap
pears that necessary and indispensable
parties are beyond the reach of thu
jurisdiction of the court or that wher
made parties the Jurisdiction of the cour
will thereby be defeated, for the court t.
grant leave to amend would be useless.