The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1904-04-23

oIative of the Decree of the
Court. Opinion Delivered by
Judge Thayer.
St. Paul, April 2O.-In the United
Thayer, Vandeventer and Hook unani-
mously denied the application of Har-
riman and Pierce and the Oregon Short
Line Railroad Company for leave to
intervene in the case of the United
States against the Northern Securities
Company on the following grounds.
First-The plans of the directors of
the company for the distribution of
the stock of the Northern Pacific and
Great Northern Railway Companies is
not violative of the decree in the
: Northern Securities case.
Second-No one but the United
States can successfully appeal to the
court to enjoin the execution of that
plan ON the ground that it is in viola
ton of the Sherman anti trust act,
and the United States expresses salts
faction with the present decree.
Third-The stock of the two railway
companies is not in the custody of the
court.
| Fourth-An intervention is not nee
essary to enable the petitioners to pro-
tect any pecuniary interest or equity
they have.
Judge Thayer delivered the opinion
of the court.
The formal entry of the court is as
follows:
The application of E. H. Hartman,
w. S. Pierce and the Oregon Short
Line Railroad Company for leave to
intervene in this case was heard before
this court on April ~ and ID, 1904,
and after due consideration it is here
by ordered that this application be and
is hereby denied.
Reasons for Decree.
The court in discussing the reasons
for the decree, after reciting the
grounds put forth by Hartman and
Pierce for leave to intervene, says
Applications for leave to intervene
in case after the entry of final de-
cree are very unusual. They are new
er granted as matter of course, and
owing to the tendency of such appli-
cations to occasion delay and prolong
litigation, they ought not to be granted
unless it is necessary to do so to pre-
serve some right that cannot otherwise
be protected or to avoid some compIi-
cation that is liable to arise.
1.-The principal ground, as it seems,
on which 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 allowed TO raise further
issues and allowed to obtain further
orders. 1t is undoubtedly true that a
supplemental bill may be filed in a
case after final decree for the purpose
of fully executing it, when, after the
decree is entered, some action has been
taken, or unforeseen events have oc.
CURED which will prevent its enforce
ment unless some further orders or de-
cisions are given. But we fail to per-
ceive that further orders are necessary
|
execution of the decree according to its
terms. The decree was wholly prohib-
itory. 1t enjoined 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 enforce
ment is deemed essential.
Disposition of Stock.
! 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 company
the stockholders of that company
would be able and likewise disposed to
make some disposition of the stock,
which, under all the circumstances of
the case, would be fair and just, and
would restore it to the markets of the
world, where it would have some val
ne instead of being worthless COM
modify. 1t was thought that the duty
ofthus disposing of it could safely be
left to the stockholders of the Securi-
ties company and that if any contro-
versy arose in the discharge of this
function, i'll view of the situation that
had been created by the decree, it
would be controversy that would
properly form the subject matter of an
independent suit between the parties
Immediately interested
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
railways would result in leaving the