Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-08-01


day In the United States circuit court
handed down his decision In the case OF
the state OF Minnesota against the
Northern Securities company the
Great Northern railway, the Northern
Pacific railway company, and James j.
Hill. as president Of the Northern Sc
cureties company and Individually in
which he sustained the contentious Of
the defendants and dismissed the bal
OF complaint OF the state lie iinds that
the Northern SECURITIES company mas
not violated The state laws iorbiadils
the consolidation OF parallel ana COM
petlng lines OF railway, through us
ownership of the stock OF the Great
Northern and Northern Paclfic idll-
ways He refuses the injunt tons asked
by The state OF Meidnesota TO restrain
the secuteies company from voting me
stock OF the two railroad companies VI
either OF them.
This decision Affects the results Of
the feicfai governments victory IN the
circuit court ia no way whatever. The
federal SUIT In .olVed the same defend
ants anu Tue stlilt bthNi"N eN"fN "
facts, but MAS bas ID on a totally dinef-
ent contention Of law.
The federal suit in which the secur-
cites was beaten was prosecution TOR
violation Of the sherman antitrust law
passed by the federal Congress
The state suit, in which the secure
ties company wins, was based on an
allegation that the defendants violated
acts Of the Minnesota legislature for
bidding the consolidation Of parallel
and competing lines Of railway
The hearing Of the state suit was be.
gun Friday, June 8, before Judge L0ch-
rem In the federal circuit court IL fol-
lowed the submission OF much tesu-
mony by both sides for many months
in which Frederick G.. lngeIs1ll Of this
city acted as referee. The final ar
gument lasted five days, IN which At
torney- General Douglass. former Atty
Gen. George b. Wilson and Atty NJ, ID.
Mum spoke for the state and George
B. Young NJ d. Grover and G.. w.
Bum for the defendants. The case was
submitted Wednesday, June 10. An APP
peal TO the United states supreme court
Is now pending Ia the federal suitt
Judge lochrou q lis de>ision says n.
part
"The defendant, the Great Northern
Railway company Is Minnesota cor
poration which has. as stated In the
bill acquired the property rights and
franchises and the management and
control OF various specified railways.
That the defendant, the Northern Pa
cifc Railway company. is Wisconsin
corporation which filed rs articles OF
INCORPORATION In Minnesota. ana In 1896
purchased ana acquired all the raiifoad
properties, railway lines, right Of way,
rolling stock and franchises Of the ear
Her Northern Pacific Railway company,
and he also stated In the bin acquired
the property rights and franchises and
the management and control Of other
specified railway corporations. That
said Great Northern and Northern Pa
cinc companies now and for many
years. severally own operate and MAIN
tain and operate q main line Of rail-
way extending from the cities OF Du-
mth. st. Paul and Minneapolis, west
ward. across the states Of Minnesota,
North Dakota. Montana Idaho and
Washington TO Puget sound with
many branches along the route Of said
ltlti anu tue lNN HNFltlliN VI lailbaNo
are as to each other parallel and COM
peting lines Of railroad at least be-
tween cities and towns reached or tray
ersed by the lines Of both OF said two
railways, among which are Duluth, S.
Paul, Minneapolis. Anoka ST. Cloud,
Moorhead. East Grand Forks and sew
eral other towns In the state Of Mime
sofa, and that a reasonable degree Of
competition for the traffic between
places so situated on both said lines
Of railway has existed in the past
years"
After reclting the act passed by the
legislature Of 1874 forbldding the con-
solidation Of parallel railroads, also the
act OF 1881. permitting one railroad
company 10 consolidate It's stock and
franchise with the stock Of any other
roads which might be connected and
operated together 10 constitute CON
tinuous main line with or without
branches, and calling attention 20 the
fact that the same statute reiterated
the prohibition against cons 5lidating
parallel and competing lines, Judge
Loohren calls attention 10 the passage