The daily morning journal and courier., 1902-02-25
SECURITIES COMPANY WINS
MINNESOTA'S ACTION AGAINST
 GREAT RAILROAD MERGER.

United States Supreme Court Decides
 That It Has No Jurlsdiction-The State
 Defeated In It's Effort to File a Bili o1
 Complaimt-Chief Points in the De-
 cision.
 Washington, Feb. 24.-The United States
 supreme court to-day delivered it's opin- 1 ion in the case of Minnesota versus the | Northern Securities company, in the
 matter of application of the state to | file a bill of complaint in that court,
 and for an injunction against the pro-
 posed railway merger. The application | was denied on the ground that the
 court is without jurisdiction. The opin- | ion was read by Justice shiras. | This is the case in which the state of Minnesota made an effort to secure the intervention of the supreme court to prevent the merging of the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern com panies by injunction. Justice Shiras summed up the judgment of the court as follows:
 'As the Great Northern and the
 Northern Pacific Railway companies are indispensable parties without whose
 presence the court, acting as a court of equity cannot proceed and our consti-
 tutional Jurisdiction would not extend to the case if these companies were made party defendant the motion for leave to file the proposed bill must be and is denied"
 The opinion is a voluminous one, but the greater part of 1t is a review of the history of the case Summarizing the charge and the relief sought, Jus tice Shiras says:
 ''The case presented by the charges and prayers of the bill is that the state of Minnesota is apprehensive that majority of the stockholders respective ly of the Great Northern railway and of the Northern Pacific railroad have combined and have made an arrange inent through the organization of the of the state of New Jersey whereby such consolidation or what is alleged to amount to the same thing, a joint control and management of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railway companies shall be effected as will operate to defeat and overrule the policy of the state in prohibiting the of parallel and competing lines of railway, and therefore appeals to the court of equity to prevent by in- function the operation and effect of such a combination and arrangement"
 He then stated that the question to be determined was whether the parties to the case were before the court. He | held that it was obvious that the minor ity stockholders of the two railroad | are not represented in | the controversy by the companies whose | stock they hold, and that therefore their rights ought not to be affected ! hearing, even if it were con 2eded that the majority of stock in such companies held by few persons, had assisted in framing some sort of f m illegal arrangement. Moreover, it l must not be overlooked that it is not the private interests of stockholders that | are to be alone considered.
 The opinion then continued: "The di- ,ectors of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railway companies Ire appointed to represent and protect lot merely the private and pecuniary interest of the stockholders but the tights of the public at large, which is leeply concerned in the proper and ad- management of these public highways. It is not suf- icient to say that the attor- icy general or the governor or ven the legislature of the state can be deemed to represent the ,ublic interests fin such 8 controversy $ that presented by the bill Even tate when she voluntarily becomes in court of equity, can ot claim to represent both sides of the