The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-09-02
NO UNLAWFUL COMBINATION
TO PREVENT COMPETITION IN RAIL
WAY TRANSPORTATION.
Relations Of the Securities Company
and the Great Northern and North
ern Pacific Explained.

afternoon. 1t is a general denial of the
complaint. This Is the suit brought by At
torney General w. b. Douglas in the name
Of the State of Minnesota. The principal
answers are those of the Northern Securi-
ties Company and of President ]. j. Hill.
but answers were also filed by attorneys
for the Northern Pacific and Great North
ern Railway, these latter differing very
little from the main answers, which follow
the general lines of the answer in the suit
brought by the federal government, al
though differing in some important points.
Defendants deny that the Northern Sc
curities Company has ever conducted any
business in Minnesota or had any place Of
business or owned any property in the
erty of the Eastern Railway. Compa-
ny Of Minnesota are operated by virtue
of a lease to the Great Northern Railway
Hill was on Nov. IL. 1901, or that he has
ever been, the owner Of or In possession or
control of or had on said day or at any
time, subject to his direction or disposition,
more than majority or more than por.
ton far less than a majority. Of the capital
stock Of the Great Northern Company.
They deny that the Northern Pacific Com
in the State of Minnesota, or that it ever
became subject to the laws thereof, ex-
cept by filing a copy Of its articles with the
Statutes relating ting to 'f the admission to the
State OF railway companies organized under
the laws of other States. They also deny
that the Northern Pacific lines have since
the organization of the Securities Company
been operated subject to the dictatfon or
control Of officers of that company, and
deny that the board of directors Of the
stated in said bill. On the contrary, the
board of directors OF said company was,
when the bill was filed and ever since, has
Baker Rs1n Ea%srd "a % Gnss
Clough. Brayton Ives. d: Willis James,
John 8. Kennedy, Daniel S. Lamont, Will
liam Rockefeller, Charles Steele. Samuel
Hamilton McTwombley. all of New York
city; Charles S. Miller, st. Paul; Samuel
Rea, Of Philadelphia.
NOT PARALLEL LINES.
Defendants admit that cities and towns
named in the bill and points on each of the
two lines of railway are stated, but
deny that the lines between these points
are parallel or that the lines competed for
freight or passenger traffic between said
points in any different manner or by any
greater extent prior to the formation of
the Northern Securities Company than
they have at ali times since the formation
of that company and will continue to do
SO in the future. They deny that the line
of the defendant companies between the
State Of Minnesota and Puget Sound were
are parallel or have ever been compel
ing lines except at few points, at which
points they competed and still compete
with other companies. They deny that the
defendant companies have competed with
each other for passenger or freight traffic
In any other or different manner or to any
greater exent than they have continuously
done since the formation of the Securities
will IN do u, <b<
They admit that the lines are the only
lines Of a single railway company travers-
ing east and west all the northern tier of
States west of the Mississippi river. They
deny that these lines are the only lines
crossing Minnesota and connecting the Pa
State or that they are the only lines con-
Meeting the Northern States or the terri
tory tributary thereto by rail with the Pa
cifc ocean. They admit that large quanti-
United States to the State, but have no
information as to what quantity IL any of
said lands are now owned by State, nor as
to the value, If any, of such lands or any of
them, nor to what extent, il at all, the
value o. STABILITY of said lands depends
upon competition of any kind between the
~ ns or b the
either of the defendant companies. They
deny that spur or branch lines built con-
tinue into territory adjacent to its railways,
v,
between the companies or that the construc-
ton of such spurs or branch lines has been
or will be prevented or lessened or de-
ferred or in any way affected by the forma-
ton of the securities company.
Defendants deny that any of the matters
alleged in the bill have prevented or him
dered or will prevent or hinder the con-
struction by the State or by any one au-
thorized by the plaintiff Of railroad that
the State may deem necessary or adyan-
tageous to bring its swamp lands into mar
ket and secure their settlement and occu-
patton. They admit the plaintiffs owner
ship and maintenance of certain fnstitu-
tons named in the bill and admit that a
small portion Of the supplies or some of
these institutions requires to be and is
carried over the lines of one or the other
defendant railway companies.
THE LAND GRANTS.
They say that, except the swamp lands
mentioned. the grants by the State in aid
of railways in Minnesota were made by the
Territory and State of Minnesota merely
in execution Of trusts reposed in them re-
spectively by acts of Congress granting
lands of the United States to aid in the
construction of such railways None of
said lands were ever the property of said
Territory or State. each of whom was a
mere conduit to transfer the title of such
lands from the United States to the re-
spective corporations by which such rail-
ways were built. and said grants whether
congressional, territorial or state were
solely in consideration OF the construction
and not of the maintenance of such rail-
ways. and none OF said grants were made
TO either Of the defendant railway com
panies None OF such grants nor either of
said swamp land grants, was a gift to the
company receiving the same but each of
them was made upon a valuable and full
consideration furnished by the company re-
ceiving the same AS to the total amount
of grants from the public domain of the
United States to aid in building railroads
in Minnesota these defendants have not
been informed.
They admit making large shipments of
wheat and other products from and to the
places named In the bill. They deny that
competition between the defendant COM
panies for traffic between said places was
prior TO the organization of the securities
| company any sharper or more active or
more productive of lower rates for freight
or passengers than IL has been at all times
since such organization and still is and
deny that such rates have been at any
time since the organization OF the securities
company or now are or will be any higher
On the contrary. they say that since the
formation OF said company such rates have
been largely reduced and are now and will
continue 10 be lower than those stated In
the bill 10 have been secured by the sharp
and active competition therein alleged
They deny that the settled and public
policy OF the State Of Minnesota has been
to prohibit in any way the consolidation
of competing or parallel lines OF railway
and say that until the year 1874. which was