The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-04-01

Attorney General Douglas opinion
relative TO the iron range railroad COM
binadon, which was requested by a.
! resolution adopted by the senate at
the special session of the legislature.
was presented to the senate yesterday
afternoon.
The report of the attoney general is
| based upon his own Investigations and
partially upon the reports of Gen.
George 2. Wilson and NJ. D. Mum, who
We're appointed to investigate and re-
| port their conclusions.
In the report the attorney general
tells the senate that it Is doubtful
whether or not any combination has
existed between the roads in question
and that 1t Is practically impossible to
prove any such combination He also
observes that If any such combination
did exist, as alleged at the time the
investigation was ordered, the law was
not broad enough to reach it.
In his report the attorney general
says:
That substantially all Of the capital
stock of the Duluth, Mssabe & North
ern Railway company was acquired In
1893 by the Lake Superior Consolidated
Iron Mines company, a New Jersey cor
poration, and that in 1901, the United
States Steel corporation. a New Jersey
company, was organized, and on May "a
acquired substantially all of the capital
stock Of the Lake Superior Consolidated
IRON Mines company. Since the construc-
tion Of the road by the Minnesota Iron
company the stock of the Duluth q Iron
Range Railroad company has substantial
ly all been held and owned by the Minne-
poration. The stock of the Minnesota
Iron company was in 1898, with the ex-
eeptlon Of sufficient amount TO qualify
directors required by the Federal Steel
company, New Jersey corporation aud
In turn substantially all of the stock OF
the Federal Steel company was, ON the
"a DAY or April, 1901, acquired by the
United States Steel corporation New
Jersey company.
1t does not appear that the United
states Steel corporation is the owner OF
the capital stock of any company or
ganized under the laws Of the State OF
minnesota, and am unable to find, after
owner OF any real or personal property,
the situs of which is in Minnesota
therefore appears that the United
states steel company, while It has pur-
chased the power of control In the man
neT above indicated, OF each OF said rail-
way companies. Is not the owner OF any
OF the capital stock Of either; neither IS IL
the owner of any property of any nature
whatsoever, situated within Minnesota, /
and has not appointed an agent upon
whom the service Of process may be made
therein.
- Independent of the question whether the
united states Steel company by beCOm-
ing the owners of the stock which con-
trols the two lines OF railway referred 3
10 oTend the provisions Of our stat
utes, am clearly OF the opinion that in
asmuch as 1t appears, that the steel COM
pany Is not engaged in business in Min
uated therein, under the settled rule
adopted, not only by the supreme court
OF the United States but OF the supreme ,
court Of Minnesota, jurisdiction cannot be
OBTAINED In the courts Of Minnesota over
said company.
On the other hand, under the decision Of
the supreme court of the United States in +
State Of Minnesota VS.. Northern Sec1ri-
ties company, the supreme court OF the
united states Is without Jurisdiction for
the reason that railroad companies above
referred to, would be necessary parties,
and being organized under the laws OF
Minnesota, that fact would bar the su-
preme court from assuming original iuris-
diction Again. the railway companies in
question being necessary parties, tile
fact that they in turn are not doing busi-
ness III New Jersey and are not the own
ers OF property situated in New Jersey,
would bar the State of Minnesota from
obtaining Jurisdiction in an action
brought In the courts Of that state against
the United States Steel company the
Federal Steel company, the Consolidated
Mines company and the said railway com
Assuming. for the sake Of argument,
that an offense has been committed
against the laws of the state Of Minne-
sofa, 1t follows under our dual system
line Of decisions above referred to. OF
the United States supreme court. that
not be obtained In any court in the ma
t1on. This peculiar condition was
brought to the attention Of the legls-
lature at the special session of 1902 in
a communication made to the governor
which he In turn referred to the legisla-
ture in which the propriety Of addi-
as l believe. an amendment to the constf-
tuition OF the United States, was suggest
An additional question fairly within the
scope OF the resolution Is presented. to-
wit: Whether the laws Of Minnesota have
IN 1act been Violated under the facts found
Tee 70 exist as above. set forth. vastly
dlnerent question is here presented than
In the litigation now pending brought by
the State of Minnesota Northern Sc
curities Company The Great Northern
and the Northern Pacific Railroad Com
panieS.
In the latter majority of the stock
of each of said railway companies was
consolidated in single hands, and II IS
claimed that the act Of q majority OF the
stockholders IS the act Of the railway
company; while In the former the stock
of the railway companies was not pooled
in single hands, and 1t does not appear
that the railway companies, either By
acted in any manner In consolidating the
power OF control Of such railway COM
panleS.
Permit me to again call attention TO tho
language OF the act Of 1874, to-wit:
NO railroad corporation or the lessee,
purchaser or managers Of any railroad
corporation shall consolidate the stock,
property or franchise Of such corpora
tion," etc
1 am inclined to the view that the Unit
ed States Steel company In which Is
vested the stock Of, and thereby the power
to elect directors of the Federal Steel
and Consolidated Iron Mines companies,
and indirectly through such COMPANIES.
to control the said railway companies,
do not, by virtue Of such owenrship to-
Wit. the purchase Of the stock OF two
manufacturing companies become q
railway company or the lessee, purchaser
or manager Of any railway company"
within the meaning of the act, and there
fore cannot be deemed to have violated
the prohibitory laws of this state The
spirit of the Minnesota act Is violated,
and If II could be shown that the United
States Steel company was q device Gre
ated by the officers and stockholders OF
the railway companies for the express
purpose OF violating or evading our laws,
another question would be presented.
However. the facts that I am able TO
gather do not warrant this ASSUMPTION.
Looking to the future and having in
mind the spirit of the existing laws
recently prepared an act broadening the
since been enacted into a law
Recapitulating the above conclusion,
am of the opinion shared by my associ-
ates in the communication herewith
transmitted, even il the laws Of Minne-
sofa have been violated that uudpr. our