New-York tribune., 1902-02-25

OUT OF ITS JURISDICTION.
THE SUPREME COURTS OPINION IN
NORTHERN SECURITIES CASE.
MINNESOTA's APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE \ BILL. or COMPLAINT

Washington. Feb 24-The United States Su-
preme Court to-day delivered its opinion in the
case Of Minnesota against the Northern Securi-
ties Company in the application of the State for
leave to file q bill Of complaint in that court.
The opinion was read by Justice Shiras, and the
motion for leave to file the bill denied
the ground that the court is without jurisdic
tlon.
This is the case in which the State of Mime
sofa made an effort TO secure the Intervention
OF the Supreme Court to prevent the merging of
the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern
Companies by injunction. Justice Shras summed
up the judgment Of the court as follows:
AS the Great Northern and the Northern Pa
ctdC Railway comDanies are indispensa bic
parties without whose presence the court act
ing court of equity, cannot proceed and
our constitutional Jurisdiction would not extend
10 the case II these companies were made parties
defendant. the motion for leave TO file the pro-
posed bin must be and is denied.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The opinion is voluminous but the greater
part Of # is review of the history OF the
Summarizing the charge and the relief sought,
Justice Shiras said:
The case presented by the charges and pray
of the bill Is that the State of Minnesota
is apprehensive that a majority OF the stock
holders respectively OF the Great Northern
Railway and of the Northern Pacific Railroad
Company have combined and made an arrange
ment. through the organization of a corpora
tion Of the State OF NewJersey. whereby such
consolidation. or what is alleged to amount
the thing, a joint control and manage
ment of the Great Northern and Northern Pa
cihc railway companies shall be effected as will
operate to defeat and overrule the policy of the
State In prohibiting the consolidation Of parallel
and competing lines Of railway. and therefore
appeals TO a court of equity TO prevent by In
junction the operation and effect OF such a COM
binatiOn and arrangement.
He then said that the question to be deter
mined was whether the parties to the case were
before the court, and held that it was obvious
that the minority stockholders of the two rail
road companies were not represented in the con-
troversy by the companies whose stock they
held, and their rights ought not to be affected
without a hearing, even If it were conceded that
a majority of the stock In such companies. held
by a few persons, had assisted in forming some
sort OF an illegal arrangement. Moreover il
must not be overlooked that it is mot the pri-
vate interests of stockholders that TO be
alone considered. The opinion then continued:
The directors of the Great Northern and
Northern Pacific Railway companies are ap-
pointed to represent and protect, not merely the
private and pecuntaTy interests of the stock
holders but the rights OF the public at large.
which is deeply concerned in the proper and
advantageous management Of these public
highways. 1t Is not sufficient TO say that the
Attorney General or the Governor, or even the
Legislature of the State can be conclusvely
deemed to represent the public interests in such
a controversy that presented by the bill.
Even a State, when she voluntarily becomes
complainant in a court of equity. cannot claim
to represent both sides of the controversy.
Not only have the stockholders he they few
many, a right to be heard through the Off
and directors whom they have legally
lected to represent them. but the general inter
ests of the public which might be deeply af-
fected by the decree of the court entitled
to be heard, and that, when the State is the
complainant and in a like the present. can
only be effected by the presence of the railroad
companies parties defendant.
Upon investigation 1t might turn out that the
allegations OF the bill we'll founded, and that
the State is entitled to relief: II might turn
out that there is no intention design the
part of the railroad companies to form any COM
bination in disregard of the policy Of the State,
but that what is proposed is consistent with
that policy and advantageous to the communi-
ties affected. But in making such investigation
court of equity must insist that both sides
of the controversy shall be adequately repre-
sented and fully heard.
When Ii appears to a court Of equity that a
case otherwise presenting ground for its action
cannot be dealt with because of the absence of
essential parties it is usual for the court, while
sustaining the objection. to grant leave to the
complainant tC amend by bringing in such par
ties. But when il likewise appears that neces-
sary and Indispensable parties beyond the
reach of the jurisdiction of the court, or that
when made parties, the jurisdiction of the court
will thereby he defeated, for the court to grant
leave to amend would be useless.
j. Pierpont Morgan was present when the
opinion of the court delivered