The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1902-04-15
STATES FIGHT
ON The MERGER
Washington in Nupreme Court
to Dissolve Hill Combination.
QUESTIONS OF Comfy up
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE
RI5HTs OF THE PEOPLE.
QUESTIONS OF Comfy up

day heard arguments in the case
of The state of Washington VS., tie
Ntsrl hern Securities company and the
Northern Pacific and Great Northern
railroads. involving the merger Of the
TWO railroads.
Attorney General Stratton appeared
for the state and made the opening az
guL,ent. contending that this court is
The only one that c5n properly hear the
case. and that if it refuses TO hear it
there is no tribunal To which the state
can apply for the redress of a wrong.
he was frequently interrogated b.
members Of the court. Justice White
asked why the state could not pass a
law of its own to cover the case, and
Mr.. Stratt0n replied that he thought
the state had the right. bat that it is
also entitled to an Independent proceed /
ing FOR Injunction. In reply TO Justice
Harlsn, he said that the state might
Of course. proceed against either or the
railroad companies for damages, but
that the Northern Securities company
could not be thus reached in a state
court. The chief justice wanted to know
if the state could not institute a SUIT
and give the securities company a
chance to come in.
yves" was the reply, "but it won
come in, as has been made manifest in
Minnesota" He agreed with a sugges-
ton made by Justice Brewer that the
railroads involved are interstate roads
and that on this account it was com
petent to appeal TO the national author
tiles.
Consolidation CT the Stock.
Summing up the case. Mr.. Stratton
said TIE question presented is, "XVheth-
or the stock and power of control of
two gigantic lines of railway, travers-
ing the states OF Washington, Montana,
North Dakota and Minnesota, may be
consolidated. so as TO create monOp-
oily in railroad tTaffcs therein. in def
ance of the laws of such, or whether a
corporate entity can be created and
used for the express purpose Of over
throwing the constitutional enactments|
Of a number of sovereign states and
thus accomplish Indirectly that which
This court has decided could not be
done dire tly-"
charles w Bum and former AttOr-
ney General John W. Griggs appeared
for the railroad companies, and the
Securities com lany Mr. Eunn con-
tended that If the injunction should be
granted as prayed for by the state of
Washington the Securities company
would rs compelled to sell its stock in
at least one Of the railroad companies
He contended that the Securities COM
psny had the same power 10 acquire.
own and vote stock as any natural per-
son would have, and cOCid not be en-
joined.
No Line For Artificial Citizens.
Surely no man coald be limited in his
h5lding Of stocks and securities, but
whatever power a state might have TO
control the holdings of its own citizens
60 could not be reasonably commended
thai it could have any influence on cit
izells. natural or artificial, of other
states like the Securities company.
Sureiy there was no law Of the state
of Washington, nor was there any
common law that could limit the hold
ings Of an individual in this respect,
and If an individual could bold without
limitations so also could a eOmbina-
ton of individuals. Moreover, if there
could be such a limitation it was for
the states themselves TO apply Il.
He also coptended that there was no
precedent allowing one state 10 go into
another state for the enforcement OF
its own laws, and said that Washing
ton was undertaking to do Just that in
this proceeding. To do this would be
violation of the fourteenth amendment
TO the constitution Of the United States.
Mr.. Bum contended that If the state
Of Washington could come to this court
for relief 1t could go TO the courts Of
New Jersey for it. 1t sad that there
was no precedent for srch a proceed
ing.
Justice White suggested that likewise
there vas no precedent for such enOr-
nous combines as that complained Of
in this case.
Cannot Invoke Federal Aid.
To this suggestion Mr.. Bum said that
While this might be true, they must be
proceeded with by legislation if at all.
Nr Griggs argued that the power of
The supreme court cannot be invoked
by one state To enforce the police laws
Of another. and contends that in this
inst-nce Washington is attempting 70
control the corporate action OF three
companies. none OF which pretends TO
derive its existence or authority from
that state.
He followed Air Bum in contention
that there could be no more restriction
on the holding of the stock by q cor
poratioa than on its holding By an in
dividual, adding that the principle is
in u9Vise affected by the amount in
voived. The mere suggestion was. he
said, a reputation Of the erroneous as
sertion implied in the 8l of complaint.
He argued that no act complained OF
would take place In Washington.
There was no possibility of the viola
ti0n of a state law. because Washing
ton had no law on the subject. It was
only alleged that public opinion would
be violated, but this court was not
here 90 sustain the demands of public
opinion Of one state against the citi-
zenS OF another. The states should be
left % provide their own remedies Let
Washington provide its own~laws aud
try TO do something herself, instead Of
parad.ng down here and asking tins
court to do something it has no right
- 60.
In his rejoinder. Mr.. Stratton said
that the entire argument on behalf of
the defendant corporations had turned
on the contention that Washington
could not proceed against them because
OF their uOn-residence, whereas ne
urged thai This very circumstance was
what gave the federal supreme court
jurisdiction Without this interposi-
tiet, the state was, he repeated, With
0gt remedy.
WHAT do YOU think of state owner
shiDe Could not the state take pos
session Of the roads and run them.
asked the chief Justice. Mr.. StrattOn
replied that suCh 8 remedy had not oc-
CURED To him. What the state Of
washington warted vas that the court
shall enioir- a combination Of the two
roads IN a third corporation under the
guise Of an Individual and he believed
that this you'd be permitted He closed
with the charge that the combination IS
a violation of the contract obligation
OF the railroads implied in their &C
Cep1auce Of charters from the state