The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-04-20

Judge Thayer delivered the opinion
of the court.
The formal entry Of the court is as
follows:
Ihe application of Edward H Har-
r1man, WinslOw s. Pierce and the Ore
gon Short Line Railroad company for
leave TO intervene in this case was
heard before this court on April 70 and
l3, 1904. and after due consideration ir
is hereby ordered that this application
be and is hereby denied.
''WALTER. s SANBORN.
AMOS THAYER.
w VAN DEVANTER,
WILLIAM c HOOK.
Circuit Judges"
The Courts Opinion.
The court, in discussing the reasons
Tor the decree, after reciting the
grounds put forth by Hartman and
Pierce for leave 10 intervene, says:
Applications for leave TO intervene
IN case after the entry Of a final de-
cree are unusual. They are never
granted as a matter of course. and.
owing to the tendency of such apDli-
cations to occasion delay and prOlOng
the 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 10 arise.
On which the petitioners. Hartman and
Pierce, base their application 10 in
terVene IS that il is necessary 10 the
due enforcement of the decree that they
enforcement Of the decree that they
should be admitted into the case az
parties and allowed To raise further
issues and obtain further orders It
Is undoubtedly true that a supplement-
al bill may be filed in a case after 4
final decree for the purpose of fully ex-
ecUUing It., when, after the decree is
entered, some action has been taken
or unforeseen events have occurred
Which VIII prevent its enforcement un-
less some further orders or decisions
are given But we fail To perceive that
further orders are necessary in the
case in hand TO insure the due execu-
ton Of the decree according to its
terms The decree was wholly pro
hibitOry. 1t enjOiued the doing of Ger
tain threatened acts, and So long as
these acts are not done 1t enforces
itself and no further action locking
TO its enforcement is deemed essential
Ground For Another Suit.
When the decree was entered it was
assumed by the court that when The
stock was thus rendered valueIess 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 value
instead of being a worthless. commodf-
ty. It was thought that the duty Of
thus dispOsing OF it could safely be left
to the stockholders of the Securities
company. and that if any controversy
arose in the discharge Of this function.
~ - .
created by the decree. IL would be =
controversy that would properly form
the subject matter or an independent
suit between the parties Immediately
interested.
1t 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 affirmanCe 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 pro
posed plan of dispOsing of the stock
of the Northern Pacific and Great
Northern railways would result in
leaving the control of the two rail-
roads in the hands Of persons who CO.
operated in forming the Securities
company. the court said.
Debatable Questions.
'The issues suggested are disputed
and debatabIe questions OF fact which
the parties would be entitled TO litiga;e
! with witnesses and evidence after
| leave TO intervene had been granted
and we decline 10 consider them or the
afidavits or excerpts which presents
/ them upon this motion
According to well established rules
the petitioners cannot iurude into this
litigation merely 10 protect the public
interests as long az the government
is present by its attorney general and
expresses its disproval of such intru-
sion. The petitioners can intervene
only for their protection for their own
individual interests, and for that pur-
pose only in the event that they ean
obtain adequate protection in no other
way
The United States stands on the de-
cree as affirmed, and submits that the
court is only concerned to see that IT,
is faithfully observed by the defend
ants according TO its terms. In view
Of this declaration on the part Of the
that the government is disposed to per
nit the stockholders Of the Securities
company 10 formulate some plan COR
the equitable disposition of the stock
of the two railways companies. If they
can do so, which VIII not be in viola
ton Of law, feeling confident OF us
Z ability TO dissolve any future combine
tion in restraint of Interstate con-
merce should one IN fact result from
any scheme that may be devised Tor