Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-04-11
MinReseta's Case Sent to.the
TUi
! State Courts.
Observation-Disclosures
UNANIMOUS OPINION OF THE sU-
a,.,,, PREME COURT.
Circuit Court Was Without Jurisdiction
in the Case--Decision
Reversed.

The United States Supreme Court today
decided the case of the state of Minnesota
against the Northern Securities Company
and the Northern Pacific and Great North
ern Railway Companies. involving the va
iidity OF the merger of the two railroad
companies, holding that 1t was without ju-
risdiction, and reversing the opinion of the
court below. Justice Harlan. who delfv-
cred the opinion. said that the circuit court
should not have entertained jurisdiction In
the case. the effect being to remand the
case to, the state courts.
Justice Harlan's Opinion.
In delivering the. opinion of the court
Justice Harlan cited the facts bearing
on the origin and history Of the case. say
ing that originally the suit was insti-
tuted by the state in It's own court, but
that before an opinion could be reached
there 1t was, on petition of the securities
company. transferred to the circuit court
for the district OF Minnesota, by which
court 1t was dismissed. Much controversy
arose over the right to remove to the
federal court, and after hearing the case
argued once the Supreme Court ordered
second hearing on that point
Justice Harlan called attention to the fact
That the proceeding was for the purpose Of
enforcing both the state laws and the fed
eral antitrust act saying that the circuit
court could not have taken Jurisdiction il
only the state statutes had been involved.
Taking up the, federal law and analyzing
its provisions. he said It was clear that the
case did not belong to any of the classes
provided for by it.
1T u.s. he said. mot a criminal proceed
ing. nor suit in equity iii the name of
the United States to restrain violations of
the antitrust act. nor a proceeding i'm the
name of the United States for the forfeit
ure Of property. nor an action by any per-
son or corporation for the recovery of
threefold damages for injury done to bust
ness or property by some other person or
corporation.
Minnesota's Proprietary Interests.
The contentio nthat the case involved
proprietary interests OF the state was not
allowed to influence the opinion. On that
point the court said in part:
THE injury on account of which the pres
ent suit was brought is at most only remote
and Indirect such an injury as would come
alike. although in different degrees. to
every Individual owner of property in
state by reason Of the suppression, in viola
ton of the act of Congress. of free compet1-
ton between interstate carriers engaged in
business in such states. If Minnesota may,
by an original suit in its name, invoke the
Jurisdiction of the circuit court, because
alone Of the alleged remote and indirect
injury to its proprietary interests, arising
from the mere absence of free competition
In trade and commerce as carried on by
interstate curriers' within it's limits, then
every state upon like grounds may MAIN
TAIN in its name, in circuit court of the
United States, a suit against interstate
carriers engaged in business within their
respective limits
The court also refused to hold that Min
nesota's dignity or rights state would
be affected under article ~ of the Federal
Constitution by permitting the stock of
corporations OF that state to be held by an
outside corporation like the Securities Com
.TlIStff.s Marian said the Court did
not think that the article of the Constitu
ton had any bearing whatever on the
question:, adding: 1T only prescribes a
rule by which courts, federal and state,
are to be guided when question arises in
the progress of pending suit to the
faith and credit to be given by the court
to the public acts, records and judicial pro-
ceedings of a state other than that in
which the court is sitting.
Not in Courts Jurisdiction.
He said in closing: For the reasons stat
ed. we are of opinion that the suit does not
to use the words of the act of 1S75-really
and substantially involve dispute or con-
troversy within the jurisdiction of the cir
cult court for the purpose of final decree.
That being the case the circuit court. fol-
lowing the mandate of the statute, should
not have proceeded therein but should have
remanded the cause to the state court.
THE decree of the circuit court is re-
versed and, the case is sent back with di-
rections that it be remanded to the state
court
The opinion of the court was unanimous.
Mr.. Root Arrives in st. Paul
ST. PAUL. Mimi. April 11.-Elihu Root.
former Secretary of War. arrived in st.
Paul over the Burlington road to take up
his work in connection with the matter 10
be argued before the United States court
for the district of Minnesota tomorrow as
to whether the petition on the part of the
Hartman interests for leave to intervene
In the settlement of the Northern Securities
Companys affairs shall be denied or grant
ed He was driven to J. ]. Hills home for
breakfast, after which he joined Francis
John G. johnson of Philadelphia. d. Grow
er. general counsel of the Great Northern
railway, and G w. Bum, general coun-
sci of the Northern Pacific. at the offices
Oh the Great Northern railway.
Learns Of the Decision.
While the party was in conference, a mes
senger brought a telegram giving the re-
suit of the United States Supreme Court de-
cision In the case of Minnesota against tie
Northern Securities Company. How this
message was received or what was said is
not known, neither Mr. Hill nor any of
the others there was accessible for an in
teryiew.
The motion of E. HI. Hartman and Wins
low fierce Iot leave TO file petition in in
tervention In the case of the United States
against the Northern Securities Company.
will come to hearing before the United
States court for the district of Minnesota
tomorrow
Judge Walter H. Sanborn, st. Paul. will
preside. - r.
Question for Consideration.
The first question for consideration will
be whether or not Messrs Hartman and
Pierce win be permitted to file their petit
ton.
If that is decided in the affirmative. fur
Their proceedings in the regular order NAV
be had. If it is denied. it will probably end
the proceeding and the suit Of the United
Company will stand as it did before the
motion for leave to intervene was fled