New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-07-16
WHAT THE JUDGE SAYS.


The defence controyerts material allegations in
the bill. some OF which embody averments OF fact,
dtiu al oehtrS aEtFihthA OF l" WIN lespect 70 soHae
upon the equities OF the the affdavits and
face Of the b it IS evident that The nal decision
necessarily VIII involve the considcration Of grave,
novel and delicate questions OF law. on the pres
entation OF their arguments FOR and against the
awarding Of a preliminary Injunction. counsel on
both sides have with strong insistence urged and.
with elaboration and signal ability discussed
reaching IN their scope, and by no means free from
~ 80 ~ iis a. ~ ~ It a ma utts'oi.
tion. The granting or refusal OF preliminary In
FOR the exercise Of sound judicial discretion in
view Of all the circumstances Of the particular
The legitimate object Of a preliminary Injunction.
property rights in controversy Until the decision
Of The case on a, fun and final hearing upon tn.
Jurisdiction or other sufficient cause. The iniunc
sense finally conclude the rights of parties. what
ever may be It's practical operation under excep-
1t does not appear. nor has It been claimed or in
Junction asked FOR You'd interfere ere With the opera
ton of the Northern Pacific and Great Northern
detrimental to the interest Of tho public It un-
doubtedy would, during the continuance in force Of
me Injunction preclude the stockholders Of the
nr,i 0naIen Scc9fies h 1oInpany or a c9hsderable
ceiving dividends on the stock Of either of the rail
tp companies mes unless under and 10y virtue OF some
ms ms court mas power to require Of the complain
injunction a bond in such form and amount fully
20 f0,, indemny al persons who may ultimately be
Damage resulting from the suspension OF their pay
On the other hand. the denial Of a preliminary
Injunction would if the compainants should uti-
relief in this suit Is concerned and the stock Of
rata among the stockholders Of the Northern Sc
Gurlnss cit company IN acceptance with the plan Of
complainants would receive. instead Of the stock
Ing at par only TO sS2 0706l2 and the stock of the
Great Northern Railway Company of the par value
AS between the complainants applying for pre-
linInary injunction and the Northern Securities
resisting the application the ground that the
an exercise Of niunctve po%er the Burden Of
showing the amount Of property in which the
clearly. in view Of the fact that the company is
amount and condition OF it's property and
finances: rested upon it Il must be presumed to
70 to do gives rise to unfavorabe Inference.
AT THE FINAL HEARING
On the fragmentary and inconclusive evidence
offered at the hearing Judge Bradford said it
would be manifestly improper to attempt to de-
eide many of the questions raised by contending
counsel which questions he regards as fit sub
jects for determination at the final hearing.
In granting a preliminary injunction Judge
Bradford has followed practically the policy
which controlled the late Judge Kirkpatrick
when the latter granted an injunction restrain
ing the Pennsylvania halIrodu company from
taking down the poles and wires of the Western
Union Telegraph Company when the latter had
been ordered to remove those poles and wires
from the railroad company's property. The
point then as now, was that unless preim-
mary injunction had been granted the relief
sought could not be obtained even though de-
cision might be granted in favor of the COM
planant on the final hearing. In the present
case Messrs Hartman and Pierce are asking
Of 0f
Continued on third page