The daily morning journal and courier., 1902-04-08
MORE MERGER LITIGATION
(continued from First Page.)

the management of said railroad com panies.
 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 action are set out in detail. Among these is the plea that unless the su- preme court assumes jurisdiction the state of Washington is without for um 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 de- cision of this court in the state of Min nesota versus the Northern Securities company it is clear that the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern Rail road companies are necessary party de- fendants, not only in this, but in any other court having equitable jurisdic- ton, in an action brought hy the state of Washington against the Northern Securities company
 This rule bars the state of Washing ton from maintaining such an action in the courts of New Jersey, for the req son that said railroad companies are not within the state for the purpose of giving the court jurisdiction over them.
 An action against the Northern Se- curities company will not lie in the state of Washington, for the reason that the courts are powerless to obtain Jurisdiction 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 which each of said parties defendant has designated an agent upon whom court process may be served and it is clear that such an action against the defendants Gall being non-residents of the state of New York) cannot be main- tained therein, under section 1,7SO of the New York code of civil procedure.
 Two briefs were filed in opposition to the prayer of the complaint, one of these being by George D. Young, M. D Grover and c. w. Bum, and the other by former Attorney General John w. Griggs. MT. Griggs takes the position that. the bill of complaint does not pre- sent case of controversy of a civil nature, which, under the constitution
  fable in this court; that it is a suit to enforce the local law and policy of 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 it's own territory; and that, "whatever the law of the state of Wash ington is upon the subject of the consol- iidation of railroad corporations it is a municipal or police law, and not one conferring rights of proprietary or contractual nature. 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 enforcement of the police laws of Washington"
 He points out that none of the acts complained 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 Securities company and it's stockholders and by the stock holders of the two railroad companies | was in the exercise of a universally conceded right in and over personal property-the right to buy, sell, hold |, and vote stock, and to pay and receive | dividends thereon. The suggested in- ! jury that is feared is admitted to spring | from the fact that one person, or | number of persons who are of one pur- pose, holds a majority or controlling in- terest in the stock of two competing | lines of railroad-a thing not forbidden { by the law of Washington or any other state. *\* It is certainly an Astonishing proposition that Washing ton has a right to complain that New Jersey corporation has acquired ma jority of the capital stock of two rail road companies one Wisconsin cor poration and the other Minnesota company, merely because the railroad companies operate roads in Washing ton"
 MT. Griggs also makes the assertion that, ''as a matter of fact" none of the defendants has combined or made any contract for any of the purposes charg- ed." Quoting the laws of Washington bearing on this point, he says:
 'Nothing in any of these sections for bids one person, whether a natural per- son or a corporation, from acquiring majority of the stock in two competing railroad companies. The prohibition place is upon the companies themselves It is their acts done for the purpose of and combination which are regulated, not the acts of the indi- vidual stockholders in selling their stock or transferring it to other persons for the purpose of control"