The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-06-09

other railroad corporation, or any stock,
fMIa Nam rights or property thereof
| corporations? If we had not limited It
10 corporations at all but spread it out
oyer oy, stockholders, why are we. going to
Why isn't 1t just as much against policy
for corpora tiOES that are not railway cor
porations to combine and to monopoIize
trade any everything Of that kind?
Statute Is Limited.
when you once leave the beaten path
OF interpretation, construction of this
plan, evident sensible meaning Of these
words, there is no limit no place. can be
liked as a limit beyond which the con-
struction cannot be made to 60 when the
eugencles Of anybody's particular case
may require it to go. And, as we say.
10 owning stock in railroad companies
railway corporation owning or controll-
Ing parallel and competing line.
But II the railroad corporation which
Is forbidden to purchase means also in
d1V1duals, means corporations of any
sort, like the Northern Securities COM
enlarged meaning in the description of the
tnlng forbidden to be purchased? If in the
description of the purchase 'railroaS
f f6pe 1o boI means pretty nearly any
IN the description of the thing to be pur-
chased why should not the same meaning
pc given to railroad corporation Why
should we have railroad corporation
conveying two separate meanings in the
same sentence? and apparently it would
mean corporations of every sort, and we
nave got a statute that the stockholders
N any railroad corporation shall not pur-
chase stock in any parallel or competing
fa!!road or any other corporation.
. NOW, lt seems to u.s. and we insist
lIlat Such a construction makes a law
winch the legislature never meant to pass:
that II they had intended that this word
SCockholdefS should be involved here or
that any corporation but a railroad cor
Eorat1on should be designated, they would
nave said so. And the argument, as | un-
derStand it, in favor of this is that this
Is matter of such policy that the Ieeiso
dture IN order to do it would have passed
lhat law II they had thought of doing it,
ana sbe ro consequently ms y that anyone buying
SLdEes In TWO competing railway COM
pdIles must have known that he was
1h,dioihng a wholesome and salutary statute
h M1Ieh the ot legislature would certainly
nave enacted If it had occurred to them
d 20 90 SO. And perhaps they would
don't know-but they certainly have not.
Result of Such Interpretation.
AS l have stated, they would make
dnls act apply to everything, railroad
poration or individual who. under anv
circumstances, might own share Of
stock in a railroad company, and 7 have
nttte4nLIoned the case of any charitable in
stltution 1t would be just so with any
business corporation. just so with any
municipal or other orporation-anvbodv.
q natural Or artificial person who might
snare IN railway company would SO
tong as he owned that, be precluded from
acquiring in any manner, by purchase
grit, bequest descent anv single share:
he would be incapfcitated: and as the
case Is hardly susceptible of the meaning
OF those words it does not seem necessary
IoT any extended argument
II seems to me that an argument ha sod
on on any claim that the legislature when
lney SAD corporation must have meant
n neoa1n ,lo and must have supposed the
people meant stakeholder, is that the leg
lsiature supposed that railroad cOrnors-
tloh meant stockholders in railroads Or
cOrporatlons formed by them for other
purposes than railroads. is iInnutine 10
the legislature such a degree of stuDiditv
that 1t Is not a proper ground for the
court TO take in constituting this statute.
~ any nothing of it's being against public
pOlcy Tor any body ofmen IeeisIa tire or
olneTWlse, to possess such stupidity as
any t5eg lstf would have possessed
with any such intention.
Recent Act Shows Intent.
Again, as showing the intention Of the
IeslsIddIure. an act passed since this suit
was brought has a considerable hearing
4 Mnen this suit was brought the Iegisla-
t tIaG OF course was awakened to the fact
tnaI the1r statute had not covered it,
really that there was no statute and
tney at once proceeded at the first on
portunlty, to pass it.
AT the extra session of a wear aoo
oon think they had got far enough into
the suit to know exactly where thew
Ss $1,000, l don't think they had got much
TIE attorneys, but this last winter. when
the testimony had been taken and argu
t hents made, of course it was evident
then that the suit could not he man
tanned on those statutes, that they did
not cover any such case; then the Iegis
1 se goes to work and supplies that de-
Judge Young will resume his argument
this morning '''A4s"'