The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-04-19
WILL TRY AGAIN.
Hartman and Pierce Expected Defeat
in Minnesota.

J
company, when informed of the denial
by the United States circuit court at
st. Paul of the petition of E. H Har-
riman and Winslow Pierce, regarding
the proposed stock distribution, said
that the result was just what he had
expected but beyond that statement
he refused to express himself. The
news aroused interest in financial cir
cles although few of those more di-
rectly interested would express any
opinion in the matter. President J. J.
Hill had not yet arrived at his office
when the news of the decision was re-
ceived here.
One of the counsel for the Northern
Securities company said the decision
at st. Paul win merely throw the ap-
plcat1on for an injunction out of court
and any appeal would not carry with
1t stay OF the proceedings because if
1t did so such a stay would practically
grant the injunction. The same is
true, he declared in the decision,
against the Continental Securities COM
pany rendered at Jersey City yester-
day and if either case is appealed the
appeal will not prevent the holding of
the meeting of the Northern Securi-
ties company on Thursday, April p.
Northern Securities stock advanced a
point and a half on the curb on the
news that the petition had been denied.
Some $500 shares changed hands in
the first hour. In the general market
Union Pacific declined to a fraction
under last nights closing but recover
ed and then again declined.
A representative of the Hartman
interest said that the decision is just
what they expected it would be. The
suit was brought in the United States
circuit court merely as a matter of
form SOFAS to give Minnesota an op-
portunity to exercise jurisdiction in
the case if it so desired. We did not
expect that ME-. Harriman's petition
would be granted and after learning
the attitude of the attorney general we
were sure that the application would
be denied. Our attorneys, however,
thought it a matter of legal decency
to bring suit there. We shall now in
stitute new proceedings, but just of
what nature or when has not yet been
fully determined
1t is probable that any new action
will be brought in the court of New
Jersey in which state the Northern
Securities company secured .itS char
ter.
What the Court Said.
St Paul April 19.=The court in
discussing the reasons for the decree
in the Northern Securities case, after
reciting the grounds put forth by Har-
riman and Pierce for leave to inter-
Vene, says:
applications for leave to intervene
in a case after the entry of a final de-
cree are very unusual They are never
granted as a matter of course and
owing to the tendency of such appli-
the existing litigation they ought not
to be granted unless it is necessary
to do so to preserve some right which
cannot otherwise be protected or to
avoid some complication that is liable
to arise.
1.-The principal ground as it seems
on whiPl the petitioners, Hartman
and Pierce, base their application to
intervene is that it is necessary to the
due enforcement of the decree that
they should be admitted into the case
as parties and be allowed to raise fur
Their issues andN obtain further orders
1t is Undoubtedly true that a supple
mental bill may be filed in case
after a final decree. for the purpose
of fully executing it when, after the
decree is entered, some action has
been taken or unforeseen events have
occurred which will prevent it's en-
fOrcerfent unless some further orders
or directions are given. But we fail
to perceive that further orders are
necessary in the case in hand to insure
the due execution of the decree &C
cording to its terms The decree was
wholly prohibitory. It enJolned the
doing of certain threatened acts and
so long as these acts are not done it
enforces itself and no further action
looking to its enforcement is deemed
essential.
when the decree was entered it
was assumed by the court that when
the stock was thus rendered valuelesS
in the hands of the Securities com
pany the stockholders of that COM
pany would be able and likewise dis
posed to make some disposition of the
stock which under all the clrcum-
stances of the case would be fair and
just and would restore it to the mar
kets of the world, where 1t would nave
some value instead of being a worth
less commodity. 1t was thought that
the duty of thus dispos1ng of it could
safely be left to the stockholders of
the Securities company and that if any
q discharge
this function, in view of the situation
that had been created by the decree,
it would be a controversy that would
properly form the subject matter of
an independent suit between the par
ties Immediately interested
ut was said in argument that one
purpose of the intervention is to have
that clause of the decree which is now
merely permissive made mandatory.
But this would be to modify the pro-
visions of a decree which has now be-
come final by aftirmance, and make
an order which we expressly and on
full consideration declined to make
when the decree was entered This
we must decline to do"
In speaking of the contentious OF
Hartman and Pierce that the proposed
plan of disposing of the stock of the
Northern Pacific and Great Northern
railroad companies would result IN
leaving the control of the two railroads
in the hands of persons who co-opera-
ted in forming the Securities company,
the court says:
THE issues suggested are disputed
and debatable questions of fact which
the parties would be entitled to liti-
gate with witnesses and evidence after
leave to intervene had been granted
and we decline to consider them or tn
affidavits or excerpts which present
them upon this motion. According 10
well established rules the petitioner
can not intrude into this litigation
merely to protect the public interest
so long as the government is represent
ed by its attorney general and express
ed its disapprOval of such intrusion.
The petitioners can intervene only for
the protection of their own individual
irterests and for thai IllrnoSe only IN