The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-04-12
MINNESOTA MERGER
CASE THROWN OUT OF
THE SUPREME COURT
Remanded to State Court by IMAM
imous Decision of the Fed
eral Justices.
JUDGE LOCHREN ERRED
Should Not Have Ruled the United
States Court Had JuriS-
diction.
BLOW TO PUBLISHERS
Books Printed in Series Barred
from Second-Class Mail
Privileges.
JUDGE LOCHREN ERRED
BLOW TO PUBLISHERS

WASHINGTON, April 1.-THE United
States Supreme Court to-day decided the
case of the State of Minnesota VS.. The
Northern Securities Company and the
Northern Pacific and Great Northern Rail-
way Companies, involving the validity of
the merger of the two railroad companies,
holding that it was without jurisdiction
and reversing the opinion of the court be-
low, the effect being to remand the case
to the State courts.
In delivering the decision of the court,
Justice Harlan cited the facts bearing on
the origin and history of the case, saying
that originally the suit was instituted by
the State in its own court, but that before
an opinion could be reached there it was,
on petition of the Securities Company,
transferred to the Circuit Court for the
district of Minnesota, by which court it
was dismissed. Much controversy arose
over the right to remove to the Federal
Court and after hearing the argued
once the Supreme Court ordered a second
hearing on that point.
Justice Harlan called attention to the
fact that the proceeding was for the pur-
pose of enforcing both the state laws and
the federal antitrust act, saying that the
Circuit Court could not have taken juris-
diction If only the state statutes had been
involved. Taking up the federal law and
analyzing its provisions. he said it was
clear that the case did not belong TO any
or the classes provided for ii.
1T is, he said, mot criminal pro-
ceeding, nor a suit in equity in the name OF
the United States to restrain violations
of the antitrust act, a proceeding in
the name of the United States for the for
feiture of property, nor an action by any
three-fold damages for injury done to busi-
ness or property by some other person or
corporation
The contention that the case involved pro-
prietary interests of the State was not
allowed to influence the opinion. On that
point the court said in part: THE in
jury on account of which the present suit
was brought is at most only remote and
indirect; such injury would
come alike, although in different degrees,
to- every individual owner of property in
a State by reason of the suppression in
violation of the act of Congress, of free
competition between interstate carriers en-
gagged in business in such State. If Min
nesota may, by an original suit IN its
name, invoke the jurisdiction OF the Cir
cult Court because alone of the alleged
remote and Indirect Injury TO its pro-
prietary interests arising from the mere
absence of free competition in trade and
commerce as carried on by interstate car
rfers within its limits, then every State
upon like grounds may maintain, in it's
name, in a Circuit Court of the United
States a suit against interstate carriers
engaged in business within their respective
limits.
The court also refused to hold that Min
nesota's dignity or rights a State would
be affected under Article " of the Fed
eral Constitution by permitting the stock
of corporations of that State to be held
by an outside corporation like that of the
Securities Company. Justice Harlan said
the court did not think the article of the
Constitution had any bearing whatever
OH the question, adding: 1T only pre-
scribes rule by which courts, federal and
state, are to be guided when a question
arises in the progress of a pending suit
as to the faith and credit to be given by
the court TO the public acts, records and
judicial proceedings of State other than
that in which the courtfs sitting"
He said in conclusion: For the reasons
stated we are of opinion that the suit does
MOTTO use the words of the act of 1875.
really and substantially involve a dispute
or controversy within the jurisdiction of
the Circuit Court for the purpose of final
decree. That being the case, the Circuit
Court, following the mandate of the stat
ute should not have proceeded therein, but
should have remanded the cause to the
state court. The decree of the Circuit
Court is reversed and the case is sent back
with directions that it be remanded to the
state court"
The opinion of the court was unanimous