The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-04-15
Case Of Washington State in Federal
Supreme Court.
BOTH SIDES IN WARM DEBATE
Attorney General Stratton for the
State and Bum and Griggs
for the Defendants.

s.
court Is the only one that can properly
hear the case and that IL 1t refuses to
hear 1t there is no tribunal to which the
state can apply for the redress of a
wrong.
He was frequently Intercepted by mem
bers Of the court. Justice White asked
why the state could not pass law of its
own TO cover the case. and Mr. Stratton
replied that he thought the state had that
right but that 1t also is entitled to an in
dependent proceeding for injunction.
In reply to Justice Harlan he said that
the state might, of course, proceed against
either of the railroad companies for dam
ages, but the Northern Securities COM
pany 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 chance to come
in
come in. as has been made manifest in
Minnesota
He agreed with suggestion made by
Justice Brewer that the railroads in
volved are interstate roads and that on
this account it was competent to appeal
to the national authorities.
Summing up the case Mr.. Stratton said
the question presented is whether the
stock and power of control Of two gigan-
tic lines OF railway, traversing the states
Of Washington, Montana, North Dakota
and Minnesota, may be consolidated so
as to create monopoly in railway traffic
therein, in defiance of the laws of such, or
whether corporate entity can be created
and used for the express purpose of over
throwing the constitutional enactments OF
sovereign states, and thus accomplishing
indirectly that which this court has decid-
ed could not be done directly
Speaking for the Railroads.
Mr.. Bum, for the defense, contended
that If the injunction should be granted
as prayed for by the state of Washington,
the securities company would be
compelled to sell it's stock in
at least one of the railroad
companies. He commended that the secu-
rites company had the same power to ac-
quire, own and vote stock as any private
person would have and could not be en-
joined. Surely no man could be limited in
his. holding OF stocks and securities;
but whatever power state might have
to control the holding of its own citizens
it could not be reasonably contended that
it could have any influence on citizens
natural or artificial, of other states, like
the securities company.
Surely there was no law of the state OF
Washington, nor was there any common
law that could limit the holdings of an in
dividual in this respect, and if any indi-
vidual could hold without limitation SC
also could combination of individuals
Moreover, II there could be such limita-
ton it was for the states themselves to
apply it. He also contended that there was
no precedent allowing one state to go into
another state for the enforcement of Its
own laws, and said that Washington was
undertaking to do just that in this pro-
ceeding. To do this would be violation
of the fourteenth amendment to the con-
stitution of the United States.
Mr.. Bum contended that If the state
| of Washington could come to this cour;
| for relief it could go to the courts Of
New jersey for it. He said there was nc
precedent for such proceeding.
Justice White suggested that likewise
| there. as no precedent for such enor-
nous combines as that complained Of ir
this case. To this suggestion, Mr.. Bunr
| said that while this might be true they
must be proceeded with by legislation Il
at all.
7 Points Raised by MIR. Griggs.
! Mr.. Griggs argued that the power of the
| supreme court cannot be invoked by one
state to enforce the police laws Of an.
other, and considered that in this in
stance Washington is attempting to con.
| troll the corporate action Of three COM
| panies, neither of which pretends to de-
rive Its existence or authority from thai
state. He followed Mr.. Bum in the con.
| tention that there could be no more re-
striction on the holding of stock by 6
| corporation than on it's holding by an in
|, oividual, adding that the principle is il
no wise affected by the amount involved
The mare suggestion was, he said. {
refutation Of the erroneous assertion i'm
piled in the bill of complaint.
/ He argued that no act complained O
would take. place in Washington. There
was no possibility Of the violation of {
state law on the subject. 1t was only al
legged that public opinion would be VIC
lated, but this court was not here to sus
tain the demands of public opinion of ONT
state against the citizens of another
The states should be left to provide thei
own remedies Let Washington proyid
| It's own. laws and try to do something her
] self instead Of parading down here ant
asking this court to do something that i
has no right to do.
I. whence Federal Jurisdiction.
In his reioinder, Mr. stratton said tina
the entire argument on behalf Of the de
I PENDANT corporations had turned on tn
contention that Washington could not pro
coed against them because of their non
residence, whereas he urged that thi
very circumstance was what gave the fed
eral supreme court jurisdiction. Withou
this interposition the state was withou
remedy.
what do you think of state owner
ship? Should not the state take posses
sion of the roads and run them?" aske
the chief justice.
Mr.. Stratton replied that such rem
edy had not occurred to him. What tn
state of Washington wanted was tina
the court should enjoin combination Q
!, the two roads in a third corporation unde
the guise of an. individual, and he believe
that this would not be permitted. H
closed with the charge that the comblna
ton is violation of the contract obliga
tion, Of the railroads implied In their &C
ceptance of charters from the state
COURTS Probable Action.
. The opinion prevails among members {
the legal fraternity who heard the pre-
sentation of the case that the court
Likely to assume jurisdiction of this cas'
The reason Is based upon the convictio
that the court will not hold as was don
in the case brought by the state OF Mil
nesota that Indispensable parties to tn
action are not presented In the case pe