The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1902-04-08

.surveT0N April Attorney
General sratr5n of the state Of
u washington today brought 70
--,.rrf7r Of the United States SUI
lrf the desire of that state TO
-r urt TO- prevent tie merger OF the
,-sa-r Pacific and tie Great North
-.a.asds. The attorney general
- for leave Co file a bill of COM
FIN IN behalf of the state versus
Northern Pacific and the Great
r.-.ssrD companies and the Northern
.7-ffies company. I'm making the
..r Air. suatt0n said counsel for
T. attendants was present and pre-
f ra arocaeI with gu oval ergu-
IF ne court was prepared 30 hear
..r adding that the ease involves the
Ems m.sLi0us as were presented M
T. Minnesota case re added that an
-rs5iats hearing was desired because
would save another trip from the
rts Of Washington
Fy-Att0mey General Griggs, Who
CAS- present as the representative OF
fs railroad companies, acqulesced I'D
HAT Nr. SlattOn said as TO the de-
stability of an early hearing. but the
- declined t0 announce an imme-
dale decision Ola that point. The chief
nsrea said however that an early
answer uogla be given.
Ir connection with his motion for
l..s 90 file his bin of complaint Mr.
Srau0n submitted copies or his bill
ana a brief .H its support TO avoid
IN. objection under which this court
refused TO entertain the bill of the
STATE of Minnesota against the North
an Securities company, the state OF
Washington has made the Great
Norsam Railway company and the
Northern Securities company defend
ants
Consolidation Of Competing Lines.
TIE bin asks for a general order Of
restraint ana injunction and is gen
era. recital Of the acts of the merger
which il is llaimed are in contr6ven-
r6n of the laws Of the state of Wash
nEt0l. prohibiting the consolidation of
nDrting lines of railroad
I'd Is charged specifically that the
Northern Securities company was or
sanized solely for the purpose Of carry
ag out and accepting the designs.
agreement and plans OF James J. Hiil
end j. p. Morgan and their associate
stockholders 90 effect q consolidation Of
ile property railway lines, corporate
powers and franchises of the Northern
Pacific and the Great Northern com
Tauies respectively, through the North
en Securities company,
This combination Is characterized as
a conspiracy and it is asserted that
tbe interests of the individual stock
holders DO the property and franchise
Of The two railway companies was TO
terminate and to- be converted into an
interest In the property and franchise
of the Northern Securities company.
The individual stockholders ere no
longer 90 hold am interest in draw
their dividends fom the ear IS Of
either Of the said railway COZ anies,
but rather from the earnings F, both
systems collected and distributed by
such holding corporation.
Says Trust is the Manager.
That The defendant, the Northern Sc
clriues company is not only eXerciS-
eng The right o. ownership of such
Stock. 0ut also debating the manage
meHt of said railway companies.
The interest OF the state i'm maintain
ns Independent fines OF road is fully
SEQ ioris- ana m the accompanying
Die. the legal reasons iu support of
ur action are set out in detail Among
IHHa. Ia
Ifeme court assumes jurisdiction the
state Of Washington is without a
forum TO which the controversy may be
Presented
10. brief referring to the former
ease brought bv the state Cf Mime
sofa says
Under Jhe authority Of the recent
e5.ision of this court I'm the state of
Minnesota versus the Northern Securi-
ues company, il is clear that the
Northern Pacific and Great Northern
hallway companies are necessary par
4s defendant, not only I'm this, but
sl} ether court having aauitable juris-
eei"o in am action brought by thJ
stale OF washington against the North.
etn Securities company.
mis- rule bars the state of Wash
-slon tr1r maintaining such an aC
-O- lr The courts of New Jersey fol
'le reason that said railway cor pa
Mes are not Within the state for tn.
l pose of giving the court jurisdiction
over them. An action against th
N'IheD Securities company win no
u. -l The state of Washington. for thN
an That the courts are poWegieS
7" OBTAIN jurisdiction over IT,"
No Remedy at Law.
|las.u. inquiry has been made. an.
mas been found that the state @
.N York is The only sta in the ma
-a 10 which each oi said parties de
.-lani has designated an agent uno
'A court process may be served. am
GEAR that sIen am action agaius
ls'en1anrs cain being nonresident
me state of New York. cannot D
-'a.ne1 therein. under section us
me NeW York code of civil bro
AVG briefs were filed in oppositio
me complaint. one of these bein
ID. Young. ri. n. Grove
v. w. bunn, and the other hv fol
v- t--e-h2y General John w. GrigE
t- '-lsss takes the position that In
700 complaint does not present
'. controversy Of q civil ma
fsr- ". ID. under the constitution an
IN --.- laa United States. is justifaa
f-- s sears. that it is suit Co er
s.. me local law and policy of
srs whose right 90 make laws an
ana ~ .-en exists only within itsel