New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-04-08
ASSAILING THE MERGER.
SUIT BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE SUPREME COURT

Of the State of Washington to-day brought to the
attention Of the United States Supreme Court the
desire of that State to bring suit to prevent the
merger Of the Northern Pacific and Great North
ern railroads by moving for leave to file a bill
Of complaint behalf of the State against the
Northern Pacific and Great Northern Railroad
companies and the Northern Securities Company.
In making the motion Mr.. Stratton said that coun-
sci for the defendants present and prepared to
proceed with oral argument If the court was
prepared to hear them, adding that the in
wolves the same questions presented in the
Minnesota case. He said that an immediate hear
ing was desired because il would another trip
from the State of Washington.
Ex-Attorney General Griggs. who present as
the representative of the railroad companies. &C
ouiesced In what Mr.. Stratton had said the
desra hilitv Of an early hearing but the court
cined to announce an immediate decision on that
point The Chief Justice said however, that an
early response would be given
In connection with his motion for leave TO file
his bill of complaint Mr. Stratton submitted copies
his bill a brief in its support To avoid the
objection under which this court refused to enter
bill of the State of Minnesota against the
Northern Securities Company, the State of Wash
ington has made the Great Northern Railway Com
pany and the Northern Pacific Railway Company
defendants.
GROUNDS OF THE STATES COMPLAINT.
The bill asks for general order of restraint and
injunction and is general recital of the acts Of
merger, which, ii is said, IN contravention Of
the laws Of the State OF Washington prohibiting
the consolidation of competing lines Of railroad It
is charged specifically that the Northern Securi-
ties Company organized solely for the purpose
Of carrying and accomplishing the designs.
agreement and plans of James j. Hill and J. Pier
pont Morgan and their associate stockholders to
effect a consolidation of the property railway
lines, corporate powers and franchises of the
Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railway COM
panies, respectively. through the Northern securi-
ties Company"
This combination is characterized "conspir-
acy.' and is asserted that the interest of the
individual stockholders in the property and fran
chse Of the two railway companies was 10 ter
inmate and to be converted into interest in the
property and franchise OF the Northern Securities
Company The individual stockholders were no
longer hold interest in draw their dividends
from the earnings of either of said railway com
panies. but rather from the earnings Of both sys-
TENS. collected and distributed by such holding
corporation. That the defendant, the Northern
Securities Company only exercising the
right ownership of such stock. but also debating
the management OF said railway companies
The interest of the State in maintaining indepen-
dent lines Of road Is fully set forth, and in the
accompanying brief the legal reasons in support OF
the action are given in detail. Among these Is the
plea that unless the Supreme Court assumes juris-
diCtion the state Of Washington Is without forum
to which the controversy may he presented
The brief. referring to the former case brought
by the State OF Minnesota, says:
Under the authority Of the decision Of this
court in State OF Minnesota against Northern Sc
curities Company it is clear that the Northern Pa
ctfc and Great Northern Railway companies are
am obeT tort having eGuIta BE iurfsdction in an
action brought by the state Of Washington against
6ne sta1e o. nv cnrs 81 for the rea
son that said railway companies are not within
the State for the purpose Of giving the court
jurisdiction them An action against the
Northern Securities Company viii not lie in the
sT s nogss 70 obfat t,rsactior over its
person Careful inquiry mas been mace ahI II ts
"a; sf y. ha o 5sina-4s an agent upon whom
court process may be served. and II Is clear that
such an action against the defendants (an being
non-residents Of the State OF New-Yortl cannot be
York Code Of Civil Procedure.
MR. GR1GGs DEFENDS THE MERGER.
Two briefs were filed in opposition 10 the prayer
OF the complaint one OF these being by George r.
Young NJ D Grover and c ". Bum and the
other by ex-Attorney General Griggs Mr.. Grsss
takes the position that the bill OF complaint does
not present a case OF controversy Of civil
nature. which, under the constitution and laws Of
the United States is Unsuitable IN this that
It is suit to enforce the local law and policy OF
State whose right make laws and 10 enforce
them exists only within itself and by of its
own agencies. and is limited TO its own territory,
and that whatever the Jaw OF the State OF Wash
ington upon the subject Of the consolidation OF
railroad corporations. il IS municipal or police
law, and comforting rights Of proprietary
or contraCtual nature" He contends that neither
the courts Of the United States nor of any other
Jurisdiction outside of the State of Washington will
their aid the enforcement Of the police laws
OF Washington"
He points out that none Of the acts complained
Of are alleged have been done within the Juris-
dicuon OF the State of Washington. and says:
Every specific thing charged in the bill Of com
plant having been done by the Northern oecuEi-
stockholders Of the railway companies, was in
the exercise OF usual universally Ilsil
personal property-the rig TO buy, sell
dends thereon The suggested injury that Is feared
is admitted spring from the TACT tnat one person
hold majority controlling interest in the stock
OF competing lines or rallWay-a thing not IoT-
State. Il is certainly an astonishing ptCpo-
sition that Washington has a right 10 complain
JoIsss u one Wisconsin corporation and the other
a Minnesota company, merely because the railroad
companies operate roads in washington
Mr. Griggs also makes the assertion that as a
matter of the defendants have COM
bined CT made any contract for any of the pur-
poses charged" Quoting the laws OF Washington
bearing this point he says:
Nothing in any OF these sections forbids per
son. whether a natural person or corporation
from acquiring majority of the stock In two com
peting railroad companies. The prohibition Is
placed upon the companies themselves, 1t is their
done for the purpose OF consultation ana
! individual stockholders in selling their stock or
transferring it one person or syndicate OF per
for the purpose of control
APPEARANCES IN MINNESOTA SUIT.
ST Paul Mimi April 7.-Appearances were noted
to-day in the United States Circuit Court in the
merger case of the United States of America
against the Northern Securities Company ct al
The complaint in this filed on March l.
ana is n action TO test the validity of the Sherman
act claim being made that the Northern Sc
crrities Company was an unlawful combination in
4,rI,, .-4,,c- writ aror1ea