The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-10-02

however, the evidence in the case, the
fact of his previous relationship with
Mr.. Lamb, and his close relationship with
him throughout the suit, and also consld-
ering the fact that he has contributed the
only money that has been used In the
maintenance Of that suit, 1t passes be,
the features and fundamental facts OF
that part of the case, namely, that he did
not know that this suit was being prose-
cuted In the name of Peter Power at ms
instance and on his behalf. The rela-
tionship between himself and Mr.. Lamb
is such as to leave no doubt that he was
aware of that fact. Now, in carrying for
ward the litigation under those circum-
stances. 1 say he was guilty of a gross
imposition upon the court; and when his
adversary has uncovered this fraud and
disclosed the real fact. it does not stand
in good faith or appeal to equitable con-
siderations for Mr.. Weidenfeld to step
forward and say, 'This fraud is uncov-
cred, and now / will take up the bur
den of this litigation myself, which thus
far I have conducted under the cover OF
this imposition"
Shameless Game of Fraud.
1.-THE third feature of Mr.. Weidenfeld's
conduct that 1 have in mind is the fact
that he has been guilty of grossly I'M
before the examiner for the purpose OF
covering UP the original fraud in bring
ing the suit in the name of mere dunn
my. / do not forget also here that 1t is
a party and was not known to that mis-
cradle game of evasion and abscond1ng
on the part of Peter Power in eluding the
process of the court for his examination
as a witness do not think the evidence
justif1es the belief, considering the rela-
tionship between Mr.. Weidenfeld and Mr.:
Lamb, and the fact that Mr.. Weidenfeld
was from month to month supplying FUNDS
for carrying on this litigation, and that
this shameless game of hide-and- Seek was
being conducted in his own vicinity and
neighborhoodI do not think it is to be
believed that he was ignorant OF what
was there done, or that he was not par
ty to it. 1t may be that he did not OIL
rect each specific step that was taken by
Mr. Lamb and Peter Power, who were his
instruments in carrying on this litigation
under the false cover of a dummy; put
in doing what they did they We're en-
deavoring to cover UP and conceal that
fraud, and they were simply acting in
the carrying out of the original purpose
to which Mr. Weidenfeld was party, and
did. So 1 say that in granting his petit
ton of intervention l am not moved to do
it by any equitable considerations in his
circumstances. l am rather moved to 1t
from the fact that this record ought to
be made to speak the truth. This suit
throughout has been the suit Of Mr.. Wei
denfeld and he ought now to be brought
upon this record to speak and act ana
answer for himself; and. also that the
same relief may be granted in this SUIT
now as would have been granted had 1t
not been for this imposition upon the
court, and if Mr.. Weidenfeld had appear
ed upon the record, as he was in fact,
the complaining witness in this cause
Retirement Was Valid.
"This brings me to consideration of the
cause upon it's merits. There are two
questions presented. The first is as to
the validity of the retirement of the pre-
ferred stock Of the Northern Pacific Rail-
way company. That is not now contro-
verted. but it is controverted in the
slightest doubt Of the entire propriety of
the conduct of counsel for the complain
ant in now saying that they do not urge
that controversy. The evidence in the
that that act was entirely valid. The de-
cree will, therefore, so declare, and as to
that feature of the issues presented by
the original bill, and the bill in interven-
ton and the answers thereto these bills
will be dismissed upon the merits.
1.-The other feature that is presented by
the issues in this case relates to the va
lidity. Of the acts Of a majority of the
stockholders of the Northern Pacific Rail
way company in transferring their stock
to the Northern Securities company under
the circumstances set forth IN the Pill
1 do not think this record is in position
for consideration of the grave questions
that are raised by the pleadings in that
respect, nor do think that the complain
tons which they have raised by their
pIeadings. In the first place, there are
other and Indispensable parties who are
not parties upon Bis record for the de-
termination of those questions. This mat
ter has been finally determined by the
supreme court of the United States in
the case of Minnesota VS.. Northern Sc
curities Company. l will read briefly from
the decision of the supreme court in that
case in order that it may clearly appear
just what was determined by the supreme
court as to who were necessary and in
dispensable parties. The court said:
n,,o+ae c,,nrap,a Court
More briefly stated, the case presented
by the charges and prayers Of the bill is
that the state of Minnesota is apprehen-
sive that a majority Of the stockholders
respectively OF the Great Northern Rail
cific Railway company have combined and
made an arrangement, through the organ
ization Of corporation of the state of
ton, or what is alleged to amount to the
same thing, a joint control and man
Northern No S Paefic Railway way, companies
and override 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 injunction the operation and
effect of such combination and ar
rangement. But at once, as we have
seen, the court is put upon inquiry
whether the parties and persons to be af-
fected by such an injunction are before
it. The narrative of the bill unqueStion-
ably discloses that the parties to be af-
fected by a decision of the controversy
are, directly, the state of Minnesota, the
Great Northern Railway company, the
Northern Pacific Railway company, cor
porations of that state, and the Northern
Securities company, corporation of the
state of New Jersey, and, indirectly, the
stockholders and bondholders of those
corporations, and of the numerous rail-
way companies whose lines are alleged
to be owned, managed or controlled by
the Great Northern and Northern Pacific
Railway companies
Would be Arbitrary.
Now, what was the controversy to
which the supreme court said that all
these corporations were Indispensable
parties? 1t was the very controversy
that is here urged, namely, the validity
of the transfer of this stock to the New
Jersey corporation. Was that valid or
was 1t invalid, under the laws af the
state of Minnesota which are urgea ,snon
the attention of this court here today
in support of this bill. That was the
controversy which the supreme court had
in mind, and to determination of that
controversy by a court of equity the SUI
preme court said that the Northern Pa
cific Railway company, the Great North
eTn Railway company and the Northern
Securities company We're Indispensable
parties. Now, what is the situation in this
case? Here the suit is brought against
the Northern Pacific Railway com now,