The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1903-04-07
FIGHT FOR CONTROL.
in h Struggle Between
thu Harriman-keene Factions.

Nashville, Tenn, April 2.-The strug-
gle for control of the Southern Parifc
between James r. Keene and the
Union Pacific railroad went on in the
United States court today. Judge
Alexander Humphrey of Louisville, Ie-
plying for the Hartman interests, to
the address of Edward Lauterbach of
New York. representing Mr.. keene.
continued his remarks begun late yes
terday afternoon. He read largely from
Mr.. Harriman's affidavits, already
made public and said he would leave
the law to be discussed later by his as
sociates. The speaker then adve~ted
to the development and improvement
of both properties n said there was
no evidence to show that the directors
ever contemplated turning over the
Central Pacific to the Union Pacific,
Judge Humphrey discussed the APP
pointment of joint agents for the
Union end Southern Pacific and also
the alleged diversion of freight nom
Chicago to various points and contend
ed that no discrimination had been
practiced against the Southern Pacific.
He traced the development of the Cen
trail Pacific and said the plans of out
ting the property in better physical
condition, as i~naugurated by Mr.. Hurt
lnStOn had been carried out.
Judge Humphrey said hat the APP
preparation of earnings to the improve
ment of railroad properties, instead of
paying dividends to preferred stock
holders. had been held by the supreme
court of the United States to be for
best interests of all the shareholders
and lat the complainant thought the
way to modernize a railroad was to is
sue securities.
Judge Humphrey said in response to
a question by Judge Lurton that there
could be no competition between the
Union and Southern Pacific n there
fore there could be no possible grounds
for the application for an injunction.
Judge Humphrey was followed by
Mr.. Evarts. who contended that the
Union Pacific was not before the
court and the court therefore had no
jurisdiction. He insisted that a II
of equity could not abridge the rights
of a majority of the stockholders or
divest them of the arrangements of a
corporation. He insisted that no evil
dence had been introduced to show
that competition existed between the
Southern Pacific and Union Pacific in
Kentucky and that competition be-
tween these lines was confined to GER
tain points outside that state.
Lawrence Maxwell, for the Southern
Pacific said tina every suggestion of
IGduuulSHl dlll 1lcllloSSiHNi -
the Southern Pacific in favor o. the
Union Pacific had been exploded by
the proof. Mr.. Maxwell was folloWed
by Senator Foraker for the complain
ant. He undertook at the outset to
defend his clients against any
ton of stock jobbing.
ut is shown in the affidavits that
have been fled" he said. that COM
plainants are stockholders and have
loo,~ {l11Ioo1In fn~ cnn1n time They
held and controlled at the time suit
was brought more thar s20,0Go,0 DOC CT
stock. The pool may exist, but it has
no connection whatever with this suit
which was brought by Talbot J. Tay-
lor, as representative of the minority
stockholders and protecting their
rights from what they believe to be
wrong senator Foraker made a de-
Tense of MI. Lauterbach. The latter,
he said, had tried to avoid litigation
and make peace, but neither Mr.. Keenc
nor Mr.. Taylor had even given author
ity for the sale Of their stock. The
most important question involved.
after all. they claimed. was thai of
jurisdiction.
The %affidavits of James R. Keene,
and Edward Lauterbach were. intro
duced as evidence. Mr.. Keene'G affi-
davit was in substance that he never
authorized the sale of this stock. Mr..
Lauterbach's affidavit, among other
things, set forth how he had brought
Keene and Hartman together and how
he believed things had been sufficient
ly agreed upon; hat there was a
disposition to nave the of
the Southern Pacific curtailed but to
this Mr.. Hartman would not agree,
and that the suit of Talbot J. Taylor
followed.