New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-01-08
MERGER AGAIN 4SSAILED.
Counsel for Minnesota Heard By the
Supreme Court.

Washington, Jan. THE argument Of the case
OF the State OF Minnesota against the Northern
Securities Company involving the legality or the
consolidation OF tho Northern Pacific and Great
Northern railroads in the Securities Company, was
begun in the United States Supreme Court to-day.
The involves the general issues as those
in the proceeding OF the national government
against the Securities Company, but there are
some differences of law governing It.
W. S. Douglas. Attorney General of Minnesota,
and 81. D Mum appeared for the State and George
3. Young and John G. Thompson for the Securt-
ties Company.
Attorney General Douglas made tho opening
statement combining himself largely to the facts IN
the case He said that the case involved prinoi-
paly the constitutionaty OF State laws, and added
that. in addition to Incorporating the evidence
taken IN the federal case. the State had added
testimony relative the purpose OF the Securities
Company and concerning the result of its acta-
Outlining the differences presented in this case
and the federal case he said that these were
found: First IN the fact that the organization OF
the Securities Company and the purchase of the
two railroad lines is a violation Of the State law
Of 1874. prohibiting the consolidation OF railroad
lines in the State second. the consolidation violates
the State Antitrust law; third, the transaction
involves the proprietary interests of the State and
fourth, that it operates to violate the common law,
as well as the Minnesota statutes
With reference to the purpose and effect Of the
union of the two roads he contended that 1t was
TO violate the State law and create a monopoly,
and that this had been accomplished in the north
ern part Of the State. He urged that the State
had right TO prohibit such monopoly. although
undertaken by a nonresident of the State.
Mr. Douglas spoke for hour and half. and
was followed by Mr.. Mum, who also presented
argument in behalf OF the State. In response to
questions from the court he discussed first the
question OF the Jurisdiction OF the court. saying
that a constitutional question had been raised in
the court below that the case involved the federal
antitrust act and also swamp land act. making
the State trustee.
The chief justice and Justices Harlan. White,
McKenna and Holmes questioned Mr.. Mum close
" on this point indicating desire to know the
eKact ground on which the case had been appealed
Court OF Appeals. The chief justice pointed out
sttutionality Of the State laws involved that court
had upheld them. He intmated that this was not
sufficient ground TO justify direct appeal TO this
court ~ ., -, 1T. -.
lie II the constitutional question was raised below,
even though the point was not decided He said that
in New-Jersey and the transactions OF that COM
20 he State o 6 on tae li " OF se
Constitution OF the United States which provides
State TO the public acts and records OF every other
Taking up the case on its merits. Mr. Mum ar
gued that the Securities Company was organized
the control Of the Great Northern and Northern
Pacific railroads as a means OF evading the anti
testimony Of Mr.. Hill and others In support OF his
q cancerted movement looking to the control Of the
two roads under one management as completely as
II road had been bought by the other and
consolidation thus effected What had been DONE
he commended. In absolute violation OF tho
Minnesota OF 1874 which. he asserted. prohibits
all consolidation for the purpose OF preventing
competition.
Mr.. Mum discussed the contention made on be-
half of the Securities Company, that the unlncation
Of the two railroad companies in the Securities
Company the act Of the stockholders and not
OF the corporations, and declared this 10 be a
bubble The stockholders could not, under tho
law. do what the corporation could not do. for tho
corporation is not a legal fiction 1t consists OF
the stockholders. and the obligations which rest
upon the corporations rest likewise the stock
holders He also contended that the purchase or
a large majority Of the stock OF two railroad
panies by company equivalent 20 a
consolidation under the Minnesota faw He was
satisfied, he said that the always could be
depended on set aside "the legal Action sepn-
rating the acts Of stockholders from those OF tho
corporation. IN order 70 undo n wrong
Mr.. Mum declared that II the contentious OF the
Securities Company were TO he sustained that com
pany would be endowed with perpetual power to
destroy competition. and he added further that
such would be the effect Of the decision OF thu
Circuit Court II allowed TO stand
The court adjourned for the day at $50 p. m