The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-04-03
FoRkKING SPEAKING.
Case Will Go to Judge Lurton Some
 Time Today.

Time ToQay.
 Nashville, Tenn, April 2.-The case of Talbot J. Taylor versus the Southern ca cific and the Union Pacific, will go to Judge Lurton tomorrow. It only remains for Senator Foraker to conclude his ar gument which was started. and the great CT part of which was finished, today. This will be the last argument made.
 Judge Lurton stated to a representative of the Associated Press this evening that he expected the case to be concluded be- fore noon tomorrow. He said 1t would be three or four days before he would render his decision. There is vast amount of consideration to be given to the case, involving some fine points or law and immense property holdings. It will probably be the first Of next week, Judge Lurton said, before he would finish his deliberatlon of the case and announce his decision.
 When the hearing of the case was re- stunned this afternoon. MT. Maxwell con- tinued his argument. He suggested that as it was said the Union Pacific could not be brought into court here because of inconvenience or want of Jurisdiction, | that there was nothing to keep the mat ter from being taken into the United States Circuit Court of New York. He | continued:
 
 against the directors of the Southern | Pacific are dissipated by the fact that the very plans projected by Mir. Hunting | ton are being carried out by the directors | of the Southern Pacific. The other charge is that connecting lines running north and south have an option of giv- ing business to the Southern Pacific or the Ogden Route but the rates of the | Southern Pacific had been so increased that it was impossible to do business | with it.
 "The evidence here," he declared. ''is that there has been no change in pro- rating. and no effort of the competing lines to do business with the Union Pa- cific instead of the Southern Pacific. | Tt is necessary to honesty and good order that separate agencies should be l maintained for the two roads and at some and at other points a joint agency Is proper where such may be the natural l route.''
 He said that every suggestion of fraud | ulent and unfair management of the Southern Pacific in favor of the Union | Pacific had been exploded by the proof. | ''The constitution of Kentucky" he continued, 'in prohibiting the union o1 | parallel lines has in view the protection | of the people. It does not relate to com- | petition in some other State or country. | There Is no State in the Union where these two roads run parallel, and they are not together in any State except where | they make connection for continued transportation"
 Stress had been laid on the attempt to disbar MT. Hartman from voting the Southern Pacific stock because of his be- ing director in the Union Pacific. | MT. Maxwell was followed by Senator Foraker for the compliments. He under took at the outset to defend his clients | against any accusation of stock jobbing
 Tt is shown in the aff1davits." he said that have heen filed. that complainants are stockholders and have been stock | holders for some time. They held and controlled at the time suit was brought more than $20,OOO.0O0 of stock. The pool
 may exist" he said, but 1t has no con- ] nection whatever with this suit, which
 was brought by Talbot J. Taylor as rep
 resenting the minority stockholders and
 protecting their rights in what they be
 lieve to be wrong."
 Senator Foraker made a defense of MT Lauterbach. The latter, he said, had triet
 to avoid litigation and make peace. anC
 neither MT keene or MT. Taylor had evel
 given authority for the sale of their stock
 The most important question involved
 after all. he said, was that of jurisdig
 uon. Alter lnVeSugauon, ne ueciareu, n
 believed the Union Pacific was not nee
 essary party to be named in this suit anC to be brought Into court, but that tn [ Union Pacific could come into court an' make defense if the court would so per ; nit In case where they had jointl, ! signed a contract or note. unless tn r Union Pacific GNi see fit to come int 7 court, it could not be made to do so. In less 1t did come into court the suit wou . have to be dismissed on account of tn ! absence of party to the case. . If the Central or Southern Pacific I d a stockholder of the Union Pacific" sal l. he, 'tt is in court when the Union Pacifi
 Is there. We have sued the Southern Pa
 cific and 1t is not the corporation, but tn
 stockholders who are in court" e At o'clock, in the midst of Senate d Foraker's argument, Judge Lurton ar It nounced that court would be adjourne
 until s:3o o'clock tomorrow morning. 4