The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1904-05-12
ATTORNEY HOLDS THAT
CUSTER WAS IMPOSSIBLE

Had the State OF Missouri received a.
favorable decision in the case OF the State
versus the Terminal Railroad Associa-
tion for the annulment of the latter's
charter. the result would have been. ac-
cording to q well-known St. Louis attor-
| ney, mere fine in accordance with the
terms Of the charter, which would not
have carried with it an custer.
1t was the object of the association
however. to show clearly and decisively
their right to operate depot company
which Is also provided for under the laws
OF the State. and does not conflict with
laws governing the conduct of parallel and
competitive lines.
Section 1862, article II of the.statutes Of
the year 1883. upon which Attorney Gen.
eral Crow based his contention, 1t is held.
was punishable only by fine of not less
than $1,000 or more than s.. 900 for first
than $1,000 for a second offense. and for
feiture OF all constituent companies for a
third offense- For two offenses. which
petitive lines. an custer could not be at
tempted, as. according 10 the PLAINTIFF S
petition. It Is alleged tine Terminal Associ-
alton Is only charged with combining with
the St Louis Merchants' Terminal Com
pany, which. had that been admitted,
would have resulted only in the penalty
for a first onense. --t.t
Bat. II is further claimed, the Terminal
Company was unwilling TO win on any
grounds but a clear one. their contention
being that the 81. LOUIS Merchants
Bridge Terminal Railway Company never
Was a parallel or competing company OF
the Terminal Railroad Association and that
the former was merely leased by the latter.
II was further set forth that the Terminal
Railroad Association was not a dividend
paying corporation. but cooperative
company OF all railroads entering St
Louis, the profits OF which, 1t IS claimed.
20 to the maintenance of terminal facili-
ties. each company owning snare and
share alike.
In meeting the charge that the Terminal
Railroad Association was a competing rsii-
road with the St Louis Merchants Bridge
Terminal Company. IL was held that the
two companies did not reach the same
traffic; that they had no points in common
a State are comman to the several points
o. its several lines
Judge Henry S. Priest. who has been
identified with the case from its inception
as counsel for the Terminal Railroad As
sociation. declared last night that the de-
cision Of the majority OF the supreme
Court Judges was the aversion of great
calamity for the State.
II have investigated the decision from
historic and legislative view for the pur-
pose OF determining the Interpretation OF
the statutes that lie under a common
topic, with a view to discover the policy
OF the law. and have found a universal
concurrence in the views expressed by the
majority Of the court iI Indiana, IAN ohio 0hioi
other States have constitutions Ike
ours. and also statutes concerning the or
ganization of union depots in the neigh
borhood OF large cities. and no one seems
to have thought that there was any con-
fict between the Constitutions and legis-
lation OF this character.
Il don't believe a greater calamity could
happen to the Industrial and business in
terests OF ST. Louis and Kansas City than
to have the court adopt the contention pre-
sented by the Attorney General In this