The Washington times. (Washington [D.C.]) 1901-1902, 1902-04-15
MERGER CASE TAKEN
UNDER ADVISEMEN I

tie setting out that there was ample pro-
lection in the legislative power TO pre-
vent unreasonable rates by the combined
railways of Seattle By this decision, said
Mr.. Bum. in conclusion, 1t was conclu-
sively shown that the State OF Washing
ton possessed ample power in her own
courts to secure to herself all the relief
prayed for in the bill.
The Northern Securities Company.
Ex-Attorney General Griggs opposed
the filing of the bill for the Northern Sc
curities Company. He said it was sought
by the pending bill to prevent a corpora
ton of New Jersey from holding or vot
ing the stock of corporations Of Wiscon-
sin and Minnesota; TO prevent it from
drawing the dividends upon the stock, and
TO prevent it from buying any more of
the stock. 1t made no difference in this
regard whether the stockholders was
corporation, firm, or individual nor did
the amount involved determine the policy.
If, because $400, Geo. COO were involved, the
proceedings of the Securities Company
were invalid, he would like the court to
fix the time at which the action of a
stockhulier became criminal The Sc
curities Company Mr. Griggs insisted, had
no intention of violating any law OF the
stase of Washington, for it had nu law
on the subject. The only thing set up
was the action of the company was OPP
posed to the general policy of the State.
Mr.. Justice White-Suppose the laws of
State forbade a consolidation of rail-
roads and one man should buy four fifths
of the stock of one and then four fifths
of the stock of another company, do you
suppose any court in Christendom would
not decide that to be a consolidation?
Mr.. Griggs-It would not be SO held in
the State of Washington, for the Legisla-
ture OF that State has passed an act de-
fning what is consolidation and what il
not.
Mr.. Justice Brewer-Suppose the stock
holders of one company should put their
stock into the hands of trustee, and the
stockholders of another and competing
corporation should put their stock into
the hands of the same trustee, even
| though he or 1t be the citizen of another
State to be operated by that trustee,
would not that be defiance or getting
around the laws against consolidation
Mr.. Griggs-I do not see why your honor
calls it "a getting around the law. unless
| there be such law. And certainly there
is no such law in Washington.
Mr. Justice Peckham-Did you ever = ar
| of consolidation being based upon common
| ownership by stockholders?
Mr.. Griggs-I never did. And in the
| case of Pullman Company VS.. Missouri.
| Kansas and Texas Railway Company, this
| court has held that the stockholders are
| essentially separate and distinct from the
| corporation.
The Closing Argument.
In closing the argument Attorney Cen
eral Stratton devoted himself to the ques-
| ton of Jurisdiction, citing authorities
relevant thereto. The original case OF
the State OF Pennsylvania VS.. the Wheel
ing Bridge, which the court considered,
| he said, was on all tours with the one
| at bar There all the acts COM
| planned of were performed outside the
| limits Of Pennsylvania, but the effect OF
them was felt in he State. And the
| the court took jurisdiction of the case OF
| Missouri VS.. the Drainage District OF Chi
| cago Similarly, in case recently de-
| cided by the court, Stratton said, the
| court had decided that Notwithstanding
| the laws of Colorado, regarding the liza
| bility of stockholders in corporations
chartered in that State while doing bust
| ness in California, it was goyArned by
| the laws of that State on the subject
| The State of Washington proceeded In
] this case upon the theory that by coming
| into il TO do business the railroad com
| panies defendant entered into contract tc
be governed by its laws.
The court took the matter of the ap-
| plication under Amusement.