The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-04-19
The Action Unusual.

due enforcement of the decree that
they should be admitted into the
cause as parties and be allowed to
raise further issues and obtain further
orders. It is undoubtedly true that a
supplemental bill may be filed in
case after a final decree, for the pur-
pose Of fully executing it, when, after
the decree Is entered, some action has
been taken or unforeseen events have
occurred which will prevent it's en-
forcement unless some further orders
or directions are given. But we fail
to perceive that further orders are
necessary in the case In hand to In
sure the due execution of the decree
according to it's terms. The decree
was wholly prohibitory. It enjoined
the doing of certain threatened acts
and so long as these acts are not done
it enforces itself and no further ac-
ton looking to it's enforcement is
deemed essential.
Subject for Separate Suit.
when the decree was entered it
was assumed by the court that when
the stock was thus rendered value1ess
in the hands Of the Securities COM
pany the stockholders Of that COM
pany would be able and likewise dis
posed to make some disposition Of the
stock which under all the circum-
stances Of the case would be fair and
}
kets Of the world, where 1t would have
some value instead Of being a worth
| less commodity.
"It was thought that the duty Of
thus disposing Of it could be safely
left to the stockholders Of the Secur-
tiles company, and that If any contro-
versy arose In the discharge of this
function in view Of the situation that
| had been created by the decree, it
would be a controversy that would
properly form the subject matter of an
! Independent suit between the parties
| Immediately interested.
1T was said in argument that one
| purpose Of the Intervention to have
| that clause of the decree which is now
| merely permissive made mandatory.
But this would besto modify the provi-
sions of 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-
of the Northern Pacific and Great
Northern Railway companies would
result in leaving the control Of the two
railroads in the hundreds of persons
who co-operated In forming the Sc.
curities company, the court says:
1.-The issues suggested are disputed
and debatable questions of fact which
the parties would be entitled to liti
gate with witnesses and evidence after
: leave to intervene had been granted
, and we decline to consider them or tn,
t affidavits Or excerpts which presen
them upon this motion. According t,
r well-established rules the petitioner
Y cannot intrude into this litigation
! merely to protect the public interes
f so long as the government is presen
by its attorney general and espresso
its disapproval of such intrusion. TIL
G petitioners can intervene only for tn
O protection of their own individual in
: terests and for that purpose, only i
% the event that they can obtain ad
i Stands ON Decree.
e .The United States stands on tn
8 decree as affirmed and submits tina
the court is only concerned to see tina
it is faithfully observed by the de
PENDANTS according to it's terms. ]
view Of this declaration on the part {
;, the United States it is to be presume
III that the government is disposed
permit the stockholders Of the Sect
rites company to formulate some pla
r. for the equitable disposition Of tn
ia stock Of the two railway companies,
s. they can do so, which will not be
re violation of law, feeling confident {
20 it's ability to dissolve any future CON
Id bination in restraint Of intersta1
ill commerce should one in fact resu
ts from any scheme that may be devise
err for the disposition Of the stock Of tt
two companies and preferring to cha
lenge the validity Of any such con
bination by an independent bill rath,
than by further proceedings in tn
case
Court Not In Custody.
In referring to the statement Of tt
81 attorneys for Hartman that the stot
o. o. of the Northern Securities compa1
ar was in the courts custody, the cou
-, says:
90 ''It may be conceded that so lol
J., as property remains actually in JUG
..u cial custody, any one asserting a rig
- thereto or interest therein may int
vene, altho the case in virtue Of whi
judicial custody was acquired h
passed to a final decree.
This. court, however, has never a
nv sumed the custody of the stock of t.
Northern Pacific and Great Northe
companies, but has studiously /
ar Trained from so doing. It did not 9
al sumo to direct what should be do
of with the stock in question when 1t e
ion joined the Securities company fro
EN- voting it and the railway compani
be from paying dividends thereon to t
IN Securities company. Nor was the b
he which was filed by the governme
one that placed the stock in judo
- custody when it was filed. The int
- yention cannot be allowed on t
ground last stated.
Can't Import New Issues.
sour conclusion is that the petite
ers should not be allowed to interve
and import into the case new issues
be tried. The due enforcement of t
decree does not nacessitate such {
ton and if 1t SO happens that the {
cree of this court in favor of the &c
eminent creates a situation whi
shall give rise to controversies betwe
stockholders of the Securities CO
pany as to how the holdings OF I'll
com pany in the two railway compan
ought to be distributed or what shol
be done with such holdings, these
questions which can be settled ame
the stockholders themselves who
more Immediately concerned in tn