The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-04-13
Should Not Vote Stock.

duction or an attempted reduction Of
their capital.
Should Not Vote Stock.
Now, this court having determined that
the Northern Securities company should
not vote the stock, should not enjoy divi-
dends upon it, should not exercise any
influence or control whatever by virtue
of it over the affairs of these railway
companies-after this court had decreed
that it had no title to it because it de-
creed that it was acquired for an illegal
purpose, it had taken practically the
control and the custody of this stock.
counsel say they might have sold it.
Might have sold stock that this court
had decreed that they had never owned?
| Might have sold a stock, which accord
decree of this court as we understand
it, and according to the opinion Of the
supreme court of the United States, they
never owned. We don't think they could
have done that. 1t is suggested that this
provision of the decree here with refer
ence to the restitution of the stock does
not enJOln that disposition of it. Was it
necessary, If your honors please for this
court to render an injunction restrain
ing the defendant from selling stock that
the court found that it did not own? We
should think not. No injunction was nee
essary to prevent it from selling the
stock, so far as the government was
concerned But we contend that this
court had taken control of that stock to
such an extent that it was brought into
the constructive custody of this court.
Now. why was it necessary for this
court-it must have been, the court
must have deemed it necessary-why was
1t necessary to incorporate in this decree
provision authorizing the Northern Sc
curitieS company to restore this stock to
those who deposited it? Didn't the court
conceive that it had control of it? Did
the court intend that the Northern Sc
curitieS company should be free the day
following this decree to organize a new
combination of those behind the Northern
Securities company and sell this stock?
The court did not certainly intend that any
such action as that might be taken. But the
court realized that it had in its Gus
tody-under its practical custody-thiS
stock. Its jurisdiction had been invoked
for the purpose of breaking up this COM
bination.
But it is said why didn't the court en-
join the restitution Of it? Probably the
contention was made that because Of the
number of stockholders and the DISPOSE
ton of the stock over the country and the
transfers that have been made. it might
be impossible to restore it in all cases to
those who deposited it or to their as
signees. The great question before this
court was the validity of the Northern
Securities company its right to own this
stock This court determined that ques-
ton and knew that an appeal would be
taken to the supreme cSurt, and it might
very we'll be that the court determined to
wait, or that question might very well
be deferred until the decision Of the main
question as to the validity Of this corpora
ton, and then the further execution of the
decree would come before the court.
We submit that under the terms of this
decree they had no right to sell this
stock. This court did not add provision
here but nothing herein contained shall
be construed to prohibit the sale Of the
stock by the Northern Securities COM
pany." Nothing of the sort. The court
pointed to the only method to effectually
break up the combination, and that was
by a restoration Of the stock to those who
deposited it.