The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-06-09

In the case of the State against the
Northern Securities company, before
Judge Lochren in the federal court,
Judge Young resumed his Il 1uments
yesterday and talked the entire day.
He had not completed his arguments
at the close of the session last night,
and will talk for an hour this forenoon,
after which he win be followed by G.
H. Bum, counsel for the Northern Pa
cif1c. Judge Young, in resuming his
argument yesterday, said in part:
Now, a pertinent question, the first
one, is, Where does the state get a right
to bring this suit, to question the acts of
these gentlemen or the holdings Of this
corporation?
las 1 stated in the beginning, they base
their claims in their bill upon various
grounds--the congressional swamp land
act, and so on. The bill clearly sets UP a
claim of the state under the federal anti
trust act. Now, to concede that as a land
owner and as shipper, which the state
describes itself to be, if it has made a
case of special injury, to itself by rea-
son of violations OF that act, it can re-
cover, the same aS,t an individual could;
out that In that case, as we say, it has
not mace any case on the evidence ent1-
Ting 1t to the Interference of a court of
equity, and dofnQts understand that it is
claimed on that ground; that is, that the
state as land owner and shipper claims
relief, claims that tit has made on the
evidence case fer relief under that act.
And the case realys comes down, taking
grounds taken Wy the plaintiff itself, on
which it bases its claim in the argument
certain claims of the state of Minnesota
as a sovereign state. not as land owner
or shipper or, as anything else.
State Cannot Sue Under Federal Act
'Now, as a Sovereign state, I think
there can be no Question that the state
OF Minnesota caif1lot sueeunder the federal
antitrust act. The enforcement of that
law, so far as its enforcement is, by way
OF the sovereign and not a suit by an in
dfvidual injured must and can only be
by the federal government.
so that thiSf SUIT by the state as a
sovereign, enforcing laws, is narrowed
down and must be narrowed down to
suit by the state to enforce it's own
statute. And we concede that the state
may properly bring a bill in equity for an
injunction to enforce any of its laws re-
latlng to corporations, etc. In other words,
If the state could bring as against those
railway companies for Instance, Or either
OF them, a quo warranto why, insttad of
bringing quo Wafranto it may bring a.
writ of injunction. That has been decided
by the supreme court of this state So
there is no question here. we make, no
question, on the form of the action.
1t has always been the practice in the
state-of Minnesota to keep it's railway leg
1slat1on as a thing by itself, and it is very
rarely. we find a law in any way relating
to railways which is mixed I'D with laws
relating to anything else. And these anti
consolidation laws there is not one Of them
a criminal law;1 they do not prescribe a
penalty; they simply prescribe what may
be done by the railway corporations which
are created by the. state.
Now this first laws Is:
Cites the State Statutes.
g No railroad corporation, or the Iessees,
purchasers or managers of any railroad
corporation shall consolidate the stock,
property or franchises of such CORPORATION
with, or IN any way control any other
railroad corporation owning or having I'M
der it's control a parallel or competing
line
''That act Of 1874 was an act of a single
section relating to that single subject. The
act of 1881 was an act relating to the con-
sol1dat1on Of railway companies, and the
first section gives authority to consolidate;
the second section provides how consolida-
ton may be made; the third section is
the prohibitory section and is in these
words:
"'* no railroad corporation shall
consolidate with, lease or purchase, or in
any way become owner of or control
any other railroad corpora ton, or any
stock, franchises, rights or property there
OF, which owns or controls a parallel or
Now this act of April is. 1899, amends
the first section Of the. act of 1881 by au-
thorizing railway cotnpanies organized in
nesota and then provides (and this proviso
seems to be made up in a way of the
act of 1874 for it's provision as to trial by
jury and the act of 1881, in respect to the
THAT no railroad corporation shall con-
Solidate with, lease or purchase, or in any
way become owner. of, or control any
other railroad corporation, or any stock,
franchises, rights or property thereof,
which owns or controls parallel or COM
peting railroad to and with the railroad
owned or controlled9 or operated by such
leasing or purchasing railway corporation;
and the question whether any of such
railroads are parallel or competing lines
shall, when demanded by the party COM
planning be decided by jury as in other
''Now, under those acts your honor will
observe that this prohibition is directed
against what? Against railroad corpora
ton. 1t is no railroad corporation shall
do such and such thing; no railway cor
poration shall in any way become owner
of any stock in. parallel or competing
line; no railway corporation can own one
share of stock of railroad company hav-
ing a parallel and competing 1ne."
State Stretches Meaning.
''Now, the argument here is that rail-
road corporation means a good deal more
than railroad corporation; that it means
individuals, that 1t means stockholders in
the legislature in using these very plain
and simple words meant exactly what
they said; that when they said railway
corporation they no more meant stock
holders than they meant religious corpo-
ration. You have just as much right to
add religious corporation to add the
word religious before corporation in
stead of railroad as you have to insert
'stockholder' after railroad. We say that
to hold that railroad corporation means
stoCkholder or anything Of that sort is
going beyond construction and is legisla
ton.
Now, if that is the doctrine, if 1t be
the law. the construction of that act, that
railroad corporation means stockholder
in railway corporation. then no indi-
vidual who holds one share Of stock in
railroad poration-because he is a
stockholder-no Individual who owns one