The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-04-13

agreed that each side would have not
to exceed an hour and quarter in
closing, the preliminary arguments 10
occupy about an hour each.
Mr.. EVARTs OPENS ARGUMENT.
The preliminaries having been COM
pleted Maxwell EvartS was the first
to address the court in behalf of the
petitioners. Mr.. Evarts discussed the
historical features of the case at some
length. He interpreted the ruling or
the United States supreme court to
mean that the Northern Securities COM
pany must distribute it's stock to its
original owners; the court said the Sc
curities company had gained no title
in the stocks and was simply a holder,
the title being in the original owners.
Hartman was bound by the decree as
though he had been party to it.
When the time came for the distri-
button of the stocks held by the Sc
curities company the Hartman inter-
estS, he said, discovered that the plan
of distribution was hostile to them and
would give the common control of two
competing railroads to a group of men
even more strongly than under the old
order in which the Securities company
held the stock.
He cOntended for the right, as trus-
tees for stock put into the Securities
company, to recover what they had put
in and the difference between what
they had paid in and what the Securi-
ties company offered them. The diff
ference amounts to more than a million
dollars annually in interest.
To give his clients the right to in
tervene. he commended nothing is need
ed but a mere statement of the case,
the powers conferred by the Sherman
anti trust legislation being designed to
give the court all the powers of equity
To wholly suppress the effect of a
combination Of railroads, he contended,
1t was necessary to distribute the stock
to the parties from whom it had origi-
nally come, and declared his clients
would not be forced into a combination
which he believed illegal in the face Of
an act of congress.
The speaker cited a supposititious case
and argued that the same principle APP
piled to the procedure being attempted
by the Northern Securities company,
the only difference being that one case
governed individuals and the other cor
porations. While only a bailee Of the
stock, the Securities company was
seeking to distribute it as though it
had title, and theory of ownership
could not be sustained in view of the
decision of the supreme court declar-
ing the company unlawful. The court
was virtually in control of the proper-
ties OF the company, and constructively
of all the assets of the company. as
much as though a receiver had been
appointed. The only way in which the
STOCK could be touched except by the
act OF the court, was being avoided
by the Securities company The prin-
clpIe that decree Of a court, where
property was involved, could be in
Noked to secure a just distribution,
was doubtless true. This court, there
fore had jurisdiction, and had right
10 hear and determine the petition for
Intervention.
KNOX NOTICE is ANNOUNCED.
Just as Mr. Evarts had closed his
argument Judge SanbOrn interrunted
the proceedings to ask the attorney If
ne had knowledge of a notice from the
United States government that it stood
Squarely on the decree of the sunrema
court and would insist on the CARRYING
out Of its mandates. District Attorney
Haupt read the notice from AttorreJ,
General Knox and when he had CON-
cluded, Attorney Guthrie said: sTn
view of the fact that the attorney gem
eral has made US parties to the 1itiea-
tlon, the ends of justice require that
we be heard. 1t does does NOT lie viii
the attorney general to say that we
shall not be heard. We are entitled IN
a day in court"
The notice of the governments nosi-
ton was the event of the DAVIS nro-
ceedings, and created a decided sanSa-
uon III the court room. It was taken
TO mean that the Securities comnanv
would have the strong arm of the fad-
eraI government in it's effort to ratahIv
distribute the stock of its comnapv
among its shareholders.
Elihu Root, counsel for the Nortbor,,
securities company, followed Mr.
EYarts, and spoke for nearly an bour
ana half. His argument covered
almost every conceivable phase of the
case. He attacked Hartman for shar-
ing In the formation of the comnanv a 9
a director and then attempting to oain
q preference over the other sharaboId-
ers IN the profits. The decree ie i'm
lted to the jurisdiction of the court and
the necessities of the case. The court
ne sara was not exercising general
equity jurisdiction, Hartman had on
posed the suit Of the attorney generaI
ana now asks to modify the decree IN
the very questions on which If wac do
termined - &c
lie insisted that the distribution of
the shares on the ratabIe nlan 1ro,,1d
not create a control Of the Nortbarn
racine but the Hartman plan wo111d
create a combination of two nara1In1
and competing roads-the Nortbo,,,
racine and the Union Pacifc-and
argued against the theory advanced hv
the petition Of constructive con+roT
me court could not become the adj
mlnlstrator of the property in contro-
Versy, and in conclusion. no ohoraoa
Hartman with being particeps GRIN
ms and trying to wrest the 7oiI1in,,
dollars his attorneys spoke of from tbo
= shareholders Of the Securities cornora
ton Ool pofA-
Mr.. Root was most effective IN he
argument, resorting to none of +be
arts OF the orator, but his discussin,,
OF the issues involved in the great 10 81
was clear, lucid and convjrci,o,s c''2 &c
many in the audience. He was fToa1t
congratulated by his fellow couneeIors
at the conclusion of his are1,r,o,,t