The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-04-20

leave to intervene pro interesse suo in the
case of the United States vs.. The North
ern securities Company and others. The
case IN Which they seek to intervene has
already passed to final decree, and the
decree mas been affirmed lately by the SUI
preme court of the United States.
me petitioners recite as the grounds
OF their application that Hartman and
Fierce, as trustees for the Oregon Short
Line Railroad company, are the registered
owners OF So, 491 81 in par value of the
STOCK or the Northern Securities COM
pany, which was originally issued to them
IN exchange for common and preferred
stock of the Northern Pacific Railway
company, that since the decree was af-
1lrmed by the supreme court the directors
or the Securities company have formulated
scheme for the reduction of the capital
STOCK or that company to the extent of 80
per cent and are about to submit the
scheme for approval to the stockholders
OF the company, that the plan so propos-
ed cOntemplateS that the stockholders Of
the Securities company shall surrender 80
per cent Of the stock of that company
W Which they respectively hold, each stock
stock of the Northern Pacific, Railway
company, and $3017 in preferred stock vi
the Great Northern Railway company,
for each share Of the Securities
stock so surrendered, that the petitioners.
Hartman and Pierce are able to return
the shares of stock in the Securities COM
pany which they originally received from
that company in exchange for Northern
Paclhc stock, and as they verify believe
that the proposed plan of distribution, if
carried out, will vest a majority Of the
stock of the Great Northern and the
Northern Pacific Railway companies in
the same individuals who co-operated in
forming the Securities company and would
continue tne common management of the
TWO competing railway companies and
render the decree Of this court Intellectual
and defeat its true purpose
Applications for leave to intervene in q
case, after the entry of a final Decree are
very unusual They are never granted as
matter OF course: and owing to the ten
dency of such applications to occasion de-
lay and prolOng the existing litigation,
they ought not to be granted unless it is
necessary to do so to preserve some right
winch cannot otherwise be protected or to
avoid some complication that is liable to
arise.
Decree Wholly Prohlbltory.
The principal ground, as it seems, on
Pierce, base their application to inter-
Vene, Is that it is necessary to the due
enforcement that they should be admitted
into the cause as parties and be allowed
10 raise further issues and obtain further
orders. 1t is undoubtedly true that a sup
Elemental bill may be filed in a case after
ecutlng 1t, when, after the decree is en-
tered. some action has been taken or I'M
1oreSeen events have occurred which will
prevent It's enforcement unless some fur
Their orders or directions are given. Root
vs.; W0olworth. $50 7. s.. 401-411; Mime
sofa Company VS.. St Paul Company. 2
wan, OOJ. DQl we 1dn 10 DT6C61V6 IfdC
further orders are necessary in the case al
hand to insure the due execution of the
decree according to it's terms. The de-
cree was wholly prOhibitOry. 1t enjoined
the doing of certain threatened acts and
so long as these acts are not done it en-
forces itself and no further action looking
to Its enforcement is deemed essential.
In its bill of complaint the United States
prayS, among other things, for a man
datory injunction against the Securities
company requiring it to recall and cancel
certificates CtnRE VIII hod iC-
sued and to surrender the stock of the
two railway companies in exchange for
which it's stock had been issued This
prayer for relief was denied. The court
doubted its power to compel stockholders
of the Securities company who had not
been served with process and were not be-
fore the court otherwise than by repre-
sentation Gf indeed they were present by
representation, to surrender stock which
was in their possession and to take other
stock in lieu thereof. 1t accordingly con-
tented itself with an order which rendered
the stock of the two railway companies,
SO long as it was in the hands of the Sc
pose of carrying out the objects of the
unlawful combination in restraint of in
terstate trade.
Government Was Satisfied.
The government was satisfied with the
relief obtained, and expresses itself as
fully satisfied Herewith at the present
time. 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 dis
position 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 value. instead of being a worthless
commodity. 1t was thought that the duty
left to the stockholders of the Securities
company and that if any controversy arose
in the discharge of this function, in view
of the situation that had been created
that would properly form the subject
matter of an independent suit between
the parties Immediately interested.
1t is true that the decree contained q
provision in substance that nothing there
in contained should be construed as pro-
hibiting the Securities company from re-
ern Pacific Railway company and the
Great Northern Railway company any
and all shares of stock in either of said
railway companies which the Northern
Securities company had acquired in eX-
change for its own stock, and that nothing
therein contained should be construed as
prohibiting the Securities company from
making such transfer of the stock afore
said to such person or persons as had be-
come owners of its own stock originally
issued in exchange for the stock in the
two railway companies but this pro-
vision was purely permissive.
Did Not Command Return.
1t did not command that the stock
should be so returned or to exclude other
methods of disposition of it that, in view
of all the circumstances, might appear to
be more equitable. The fact that the
directors of the Securities company have
proposed to it's stockholders a plan of
distributing the stock of the two railway
companies in manner somewhat differ
ent from that which was tenta lively Sug
gested by the decree but not commanded,
cannot be regarded as a failure to obey
the decree. 1t was said in argument