The Minneapolis journal., 1902-08-02

From this statement of the law 1t Is
reasoned that the state should have had
james J. Hill indicted upon a criminal
charge, instead of bringing Injunction
proceedings. :"
Now the paragraphs in quotation marks
are sections from two distinct acts. The
first is q section from Chapter 94, laws
Of 1881. The second Is ain extract from
chapter 2s,% laws of 1874. These two acts
comprise sections 2714 to 2717 OF the re-
vised statutes Of 1894.
There Is No Penalty.
A careful study of both original and re-
v1sed statutes discloses no penalty.
In other words, they are not penal stat
utes Their violation is not even a mis-
demeanor: Roth acts are merely pro-
hibitive. The only way they can be en-
forced is by injunction proceedings, which
are actions in equity. .,- -:
| This is the course taken by the attor-
neys for the state. >-.-,
| Suppose, a penalty were: attached: In
| that event the state would never have
| gotten the: case in court. The ofense
against 'Minnesota's law was not commit
ted in Minnesota; 1t was done in New
| Jersey, where 1t was perfectly legal. - It
Is principle Of law that punishment can
be indicted only winthin the SOW
ereignty where the act was committed.
/
enforcing the laws of Minnesota, and the
Minnesota courts would throw out pros
ecution based on an offense committed in
I New Jersey. The legal adviser of the
! democratic press bureau is evidently a
4 very bad lawyer. The thought suggests
ITSELF What would. become Of. the merger
case II he had 1T? -. sL.:'.. =. -;..~~ -.
\ There are several other. -misstatemente
in the Argus article. 1t says again: '.'As
far as they have gone they have not, got
ten the case into court The case is ir
court, and not one case but three. There
is the suit brought by the, state of Min
nesota, now in the circuit court at St
i Paul; the suit by the state of Washing
ton, in which Attorney General Douglas
preme court of the United States, and the
suit. brought by Attorney General tKno,
under the Sherman act, which is also iI
the circuit court; for this district.
Any lawyer knows, says the Argus, tha
no. action could. be maintained IN the SUI
preme court. because the parties. woule
not be Joined. The. three eminent counse
for the Northern Securities company die
not know this. In the course of the argu-
ment Justice White asked Frank L
Griggs, the former attorney general
| whether he considered the Northern Pa
cihc and Great Northern necessary par
ties. He replied that he did not. Yet thi,
to entertain jurisdiction. The main argu
ment Of the merger attorneys was tina
the Minnesota statutes were penal IL
their meaning, though no express penalt.
was provided. This view the supreme
court refused to entertain.
No Occasion for a Jury.
The Argus man would have had the cas-
tried by jury. His lawyer again demon
strates himself very bad adviser. Th
? quotation he makes from, the law says ex
pressly that 1.-THE question, whether tn
roads involved are parallel or competin
shall, when demanded by the party com
plainant. be decided by jury as in othe
, CIVIL issues" Now there; is nothing t
submit to a. jury In this case. The merge
people do not dispute that their roads ar
parallel and competing. And the very Ian
8 guage Of this clause confounds the penal
' theory again. for, 1t says expressly -"a
= In other civil issues. =. 49,. -, IT,
Again, the Argus complains that In th
0 action now pending the states attorney
3 have cited only the Sherman antitrust lay
s instead OF evoking this state law an
= haling Mr.. Hill to court with handouts o.
The fact is, both the state laws are re
cited In the complaint. and are, It's .bast
The case incidentally mentions the viola
tion Of federal statutes. 49,. -rs-r.
Steel Trust Well Intrenched.s
It is also intimated that the. iron o.
merger would be much easier to attacl
and that the state does not want to loc
n horns with the steel trust. On the cor