The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-01-28
BEFORE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF MINNESOTA CARRIES
 ITS CASE.
Injunction Prayed for to Prevent Completion of the Northern Pacific and Union Pacific
 Railroad Merger.

A part or the statute law or the State of Minnesota relating to railroad corpo- ration, has been for nearly thirty years that no consolidation in any manner whatever shall take place between par. allel and competing lines of railway within the State; that one of the ccn- ditions and considerations demanded by the State for the right to be a railroad corporation and to exercise the powers and privileges of such within the State IS, that free and open competition in both freight and passenger rates shall exist between the lines of railway oper- ated by such corporations, and the viola tton of these statutes is violation of the contract rights or obligations of the corporations. as we'll as of the stock holders thereof with the State. and. as we contend. gives the State the right to maintain an action to enjoin such viola tion- The enforcement of such statute is the enforcement of a remedial statute, or statute which gives the right to the state Tn its individual capacity, as well as in its capacity as the representative of its citizens. to maintain his action in any court of competent Jurisdiction The State of Minnesota in attempting to enforce its statutory right and remedy by means of this action, is not asking | this Court to enforce anything contrary to the declared public policy of New Jer- sey or Of the national government. The declared public policy of New Jersey and the United States is against the consoli-
 
 of railway, and the removal of competi- tion in freight and passenger rates. This policy Is declared in the so-called anti trust law of the United States. which Eas been before this Court on several
 The right to maintain cause of action created by statute or which arises by reason of the violation of statute other than strictly penal law, has been rec ognized in this Court. The contract ob- ligation to obey the laws of the State of Minnesota rests primarily upon the stock holders of the corporation; it Is one of the conditions which the State demunds Of the persons about to form a corpora tion; it in effect says to them, If yo,, will obey the laws of the State relating to the corporation you wish to form. the State Will permit you to organize as a corporation As held by this Court, the to the stockholders. It logically follows that the obligation to obey the law is imposed in the first inskance, and forever after remain upon the stockholders of the corporation.
 The general law of the State authoriz- ing the formation of railroad corpora- tons, Is an obligation or Limitation which enters into and forms a part of the stockholders contract with the State. ana ell IS tnerefore binding upon the North err securities Company. This company cannot complain of an enforcement of thfs contract obligation or the State stat utes because 1t claims to be a stockhoId- CT In these railroad companies. The Nortnern Securities Company, as de- clared by it's articles of incorporation. was organized to purchase the stock of railway companies in the State of New Sersey or any other State in the Union ana 10 vote the same. From this it fol- lows that any stock of a railway com pany acquired by 1t outside of the State Of New Jersey, is subject to all ohliea- tion or limitations imposed upon s,Icb stock as well as the corporation issuing The situation can thus be summarized The holders of a large majority of the capital stock of two railroad corporations authorized to construct and maintain nnes within the limits of the State of Minnesota have organized a cornoration 1 ln another State for the express purposs l or consolidating the railway lines and property or such companies and evading and violating one of the laws of the State l Of Minnesota. which bears directly upon and gives the State and its citizens cer- tam rights and privileges in connection Witn the property owned and controlled Solidated.
 The only way in which the State can reach such an evasion of its laws and enforce it's rights. is to bring an action in this court against the Instrument or | means by which such consolidation is sought to be accomplished. If the State or Minnesota cannot avail itself of the original Jurisdiction of this court to en- Iorce its right, it cannot go into the State or New Jsrsey and ask the courts of that state to enforce it's rights
 IT what Is attempted to be done here gan De successfully accomplished, the States of this Union are powerless to enforce such statutes. The national Gov ernment, under it's present constitutional llmitanons, can enact no legislation which will protect State commerce and state traffic against such a monopolistic consolidation as is referred to in this biii, The only practical way the State can protect itself is by the adoption of leg islatlon or the character sought to be en- forced in this action, and the only tri- bunal in which that can be enforced un- der the circumstances disclosed in this bill Is the one to which we now appeal.
 MT w. D. Guthrie. for the Northern Securities Company filed a brief with the court outlining that company's position. He contended that this court is without Jurisdiction, as no State can call on the Supreme Court to enforce penal or police laws in another State.
 The bill asks the court, he says, to re- strain by injunction a citizen of New Jersey from doing there acts which are entirely lawful according to her laws and which are sanctioned by her statu- tory policy simply because those acts vio- late or evade or tend to circumvent the public or penal police laws of Minne- sota, the complainant State.
 Hence he contanded that the injunction prayed for would be an order compelling the Securities Companies to obey in New Jersey the laws of Minnesota.
 He called attention to the fact that no relief is sought against the Great North ern Railroad Company or the Northern Pacific Comnany as both are corpora tions of the State of Minnesota. and both therefore within the jurisdiction of the courts of that State. He pointed out as neither of these companies is a party to the suit no relief could be granted against them.
 In conclusion Mir. Guthrie contended for the continuance of the policy of allow ing each State to control it's own af- fairs without Interference on the part of the Federal judiciary.
 MT. Guthrie quoted many authorities in support of his contention. He said there is no Minnesota statute prohibit. ing co-DartnershiD or individuals from acquiring and holding stocks of parallel or competing railroad companies He asserted that the alleged threatened in- jury to the proprietary interests of the State of Minnesota alleged in the bill of complaint is altogether remote and fanciful.
 Former Attorney General Griggs' fol- lowed for the Securities Company lie said the fundamental error of the State of Minnesota in this proceeding is in making a claim to the assistance of this court in the exercise of it's sovereignty.