New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-05-22
ROOTS ARGUMENT ENDS.
COmpiGinaHts Failed to Establish
Legal Right to Stock, He SAID.

The argument in the suit brought by E H. Harri-
man and others for an injunction restrain tho
distribution of Northern Pacific stock held by the
Northern Securities Company under the merger
agreement, continued yesterday E,hu Root
finished his argument.
Mr. Root attached great Importance to the de-
csion by the United States Circuit Court in Mime
sofa in the suit by Attorney General Bell against
the Great Northern Railroad Company. In its de-
cree in that suit. Mr. Root said the express
Is refused to direct the the original stock
delivered to the holding company
IF this stock had not been transferred added
Mr.. Root and if its value had not appreciated the
argument of the complainant might seem to have
some substance. They agreed to distribution, but
the value of Northern Pacific has up, and that
of the Great Northern has followed, and under
the pro rata scale these cCmplanants lose by rea-
son Of the fluctuations OF market values. That is
why they arc here
In the views expressed in the opinion Of the
Supreme Court given by Justice Thayer, Judge
Bradford asked. do they do they not seem
prcdcated on the assumption that when the stock
is paralyzed SO 10 speak accomplish the purpose
of the conspirators they thereafter remain the
property of the Northern Securities Company as its
assets for distribution they might select? Now,
how far is that ASSUMPTION to be recOnciled with
the holding of the Supreme Court that the Northern
Securities Company held those shares custodian?
To press the matter further if the Northern Secur-
ties Company did not by reason Of the Negahty OF
the proposition for the accomplishment of which
ership. how could the Northern Securities Company
ratify in treaty that stock as Its property
Mr.. Root replied by Analysing the text OF the de-
cree granted by the majority OF the Supreme Court
ton The difficulty before the court in this suit. he
members of The supreme Court and in fact it was
difficult to reconcile different sections OF the decree
as il described the Northern Securities Company as
the absolute owner OF the stock deposited. When
The parties TO transaction were equally charge
licto then the court would not REQUIRE the ono
party to return TO the other any specific property
The only way the stock held by the. Northern
the complainants." said Mr. Root is by action in
cellor their right to the property They have failed
completely failed to establish their legal title In
this suit the compliments have received all they
are entitled TO and all they agreed to receive. They
have equitable ground of complaint. On the
other hand there are manifold and prepondeTatipg
reasons in equity Why this defendant should be
Mir Root proceeded 10 describe how the stock
sold. asserting that thousands OF shares were
reason Of Mr.. Harrimans Identification with the
corporation. No more astounding and preposterous
Than that presented in the application, for the
ton was TO acquire stock that had increased in
and to leave the dry husks behind for the general
setting M k Eric Prs 2S Of b@Go bonds
issued by the Equitable Trust Company; Sc
cured by $50 10000 Northern Security certificates
issued to Hartman and Pierce as trustees for the
Oregon Short Line Mr.. Thatcher contended that
immortality court as in the bill Of complaint. it
that the So 900 00c OF certificates held
as collateral security for its debentUre bonds were
worthless. If it be true the counsel said. that
these certificates invalid, worthless, or Of no
value whatsoever. then this company at least
should ask leave 10 have the question argued out
and adjudCated. But they don't do that. They
come IN here and assert that the certificates are
worthless" The ownership OF the stocks held by
the Northern Securities Company, declared Mr.
Thatcher. was completely established by the unan-
lrous opinion Of the justices OF the United States
supreme Court. and by Judges below. The de-
cree OF the Supreme Court" added. dealt with
tIa fbarr Saru m = Ia
enjoined Il from voting the stock. Who but an
owner can vote stock? II enjoined 10 from recev-
ing dividends Who but the owner can receive
dvidends?'
Monday a Trenton.