The daily morning journal and courier., 1902-04-15
MERGER SUIT ARGUMENTS
STATE OF WASHINGTON'S CASE
 AGAINST THE DEAL.

States Supreme Court is the Only Ons
 That Can Properly Hear the Action
 Declares the state Has the Right of an
 Independent Proceeding for Injunc.
 ton.
 Washington, April 14-The United
 States supreme court to-day heard ar
 Washington vs the Northern 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 ar
 gument, contending that this court is
 the only one that properly can hear the
 case and that if it refuses to hear 1t
 there is no tribunal to which the state
 can apply for the redress of a wrong
 He was frequently interrogated by
 members of the court. Justice White
 asked why the state could not pass a law of it's own to cover the case, and
 MT Stratton replied that he thought the state had that right but that it also
 is entitled to an independent proceed ing for injunction. In reply to Justice Harlan he said that the state might, of course, proceed against either of 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 suit and give the Securities company a chance to come in. Yes" was the reply "but it wont come in, as has been made manifest in Minnesota, He agreed with suggestion made by Jus tice Brewer that the railroads involved are interstate roads and that on this account 1t was competent to appeal to the national authorities.
 Summing up the case, MT. Stratton said the question presented was whether the stock and power of con trol of two gigantic lines of railway, traversng the states of Washington, Montana, North Dakota and Minne- sota, may be consolidated, so as to cre- ate monopoly in railway traffic there in, in defiance of the laws of such, or whether corporate entity can be ere ated and used for the express purpose of overthrowing the constitutional en- actments of a number of sovereign states, and thus accomplish indirectly that which this court has decided could not be done directly
 Charles w. Bum and former Attor- ney General John w. Griggs appeared for the railroad companies and the se- curities company,
 MT Bum contended that if the in junction should be granted as prayed for by the state of Washington the se- curities company would be compelled to sell it's stock in at least one of the railroad companies. He contended that the securities company has the same power to acquire, own and vote stock as any natural person would have and could not be enjoined He also con- tended that there was no precedent al lowing one state to go into another state for the enforcement of it's own laws, and said that Washington was aking to do just that in this pro- ceeding. To do this would be viola ton of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States
 MT. Bum contended that if the state of Washington could come to this court | for relief it could go to the courts of New Jersey for it. He said there was no precedent for such a proceeding. | Justice White suggested that likewise there was no precedent for such enor- nous combinations as that complained | If in this case. To this suggestion Mr. 3unn said that while this might be true hey must be proceeded with by legis- ation if at all.
 MT. Griggs followed Mr. Bum in the contention that there could be no more 'estriction on the holding of stock by corporation than on it's holding by an adding that the principle is II no wise affected by the amount in- rolved. The mere suggestion was, he. aid a repetition Of the erroneous as ertion implied in the bill of complaint. 4e argued that no act complained of would take place in Washington. Let provide its own laws and ny to do something herself instead of ,arading down here and asking this ourt to do something that it has no ight to do.
 In his rejoinder, MT. Stratton said hat the entire argument on behalf of he defendant corporation had turned n the condition that Washington could ot proceed against them because of heir non-residence, whereas he urged hat this very circumstance was what ave the federal supreme court juris- icton. Without this interposition the tate was, he repeated without rem dy.
 What do you think of state owner hip? Could not the state take posses ion of the roads and run them?" ask { d the chief justice. MT. Stratton replied that such a rem | 1y had not occurred to him. What 1e state of Washington wanted was nat the court should enjoin a combin tion of the two roads in a third cor ora ton under the guise of an indiVid al. and he believed that this would : ot be permitted He closed with the , ,arge that the comblnatlon IS a viola , on of the contract obligation of the 4, ,ilroad companies implied in the &C., ( ,ptance of charters from the state. 6
 Big Deal In Canada.