The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1903-04-03
STRUGGLE GOES ON.
Warning Interests Argue Southern
Pacific Injunction Application.

| Warning Interests Argue Southern
Pacific Injunction Application.
Nashville, Tenn, April 2.-The
struggle for control of the Southern
| Pacific between James r. Keene and
the Union Pacific Railroad Company
went on in the United States court to-
day.
Judge Alexander Humphreys of
Louisville, replying for the Hartman
interest to the address of Edward
Lauterbach of New York, representing
Mr.. Eeene, continued his remarks, be-
| gun late yesterday afternoon He
read largely from Mr.. Harriman's affi-
davits, already made public, and said
he would leave the law to be discussed
later by his associates.
| The speaker then adverred to the
development and improvement of both
properties and said there was no evil
| dence to show that the directors ever
contemplated turning over the Central
Pacific to the Union Pacific. Judge
Humphrey discussed the appointment
of joint agents for the Union and
Southern Pacific, and also the alleged
diversion of freight from Chicago to
various points, and contended that no
discrimination had been practiced
against the Southern Pacific. He
traced the development of the Central
Pacific, and said the plans of putting
the property in better physical con-
dition, as inaugurated by Mr.. Hunt
ingtOn, had been carried out.
Judge Humphrey said that 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
the best interests of all the share
holders, and that the complainant
thought the way to moderniZe a rail-
road was to issue securities.
Judge Humphrey said, in response to
a question by Judge Lurton, that there
| could be no competition between the
Union and Southern Pacific, and,
therefore, there could be no possible
grounds for the application for an in
junction.
Judge Humphreys was followed by
| Mr.. Evarts, who contended that the
! Union Pacific was not before the court,
and the court, therefore, had no iuris-
| diction. He insisted that a court of
equity could not abridge the rights of
a majority of the bondholders or di
vert them Of the management of a cor
| poratiOn. He insisted that no evidence
had been introduced to show that COM
| petition existed between the Southern
| Pacific and Union Pacific in Kentucky,
| and that competition between these
| lines was confined to certain points
outside that state.
The case of Talbot j. Taylor VS.. the
Southern Pacific and Union Pacific will
| go to Judge LurtOn tomorrow morn
| ing. 1t remains only for Senator For
aker to conclude his argument, which
was begun and the greater part of
which was finished this afternoon. This
will be the last argument made.
Judge Lurton stated to a representa-
tive of the Associated Press this even
ing that he expected the case to be
concluded by noon. He said it would
be two or three days before he would
| enter his decision. There is a vast
amount of consideration to be given
to the matter, involving not only some
fine points of law, but immediate prop
erty holdings. 1t will proba bly, be the
first of next week, Judge Lurton said,
before he would finish his deliberation
! of the case and announce his decision
Lawrence Maxwell for the Southern
Pacific, said that every suggestion of
| fraudulent and unfair management of
the Southern Pacific in favor of the
| Union Pacific had been exploded by the
| proof.
Mr.. Maxwell was followed by Senator
! Foraker for the complainant He I'M
| dertOok at the outset to defend his
clients against any accusation of stock
| jobbing
1T is shown in the affidavits that
| have been filed" he said, that COM
| plainants are stockholders and have
been stockholders for some time. They
held and controlled at the time the
suit was brought more than $40, 600 900
| of stock. The pool may exist but it
| has no connection whatever with this
| suit which was brought by Talbot J.
| Taylor as representative of the minor
! ity stockholders and protecting their
| rights from what they believe to be
| wrong"
Senator Foraker made a defense of
Mr.. Lauterbach. The latter. he said,
had tried TO avoid litigation and made
| peace, and neither Mr.. Keene nor Mr..
! Taylor had ever given authority for
! the sale of their stock. The most i'm
portant question involved, after all,
he claimed, was that of jurisdiction.
| The affidavits of James r. Keene
and Edward Lauterbach were intro
| duced as evidence. Mr.. Keene's atfi-
davft was in substance that he had
never authorized the sale of the South
ern Pacific.
Mr.. Lauterbach's affidavit, among
other things, set forth how he had
brought Keene and Hartman together
and he believed things had been salts
factorily agreed upon; that there was
a disposition to have the expense of
the Southern Pacific curtailed. but to
| this Mr. Hartman would not agree,
and that the suit of Talbot ]. Taylor
followed.