Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1904-04-14
SUPREME COURT SENDS MINNIE.
sofa ANTl.MEeoER SUIT TO
STATE TRIBUNALS.

Erred In Entertaining Jurisdiction
rs the Points involved DO Not Come
Within the Provisions Of the Federal
Law-Justice Harlan Delivers the
Opinion, All the Justices concurrlng.
Washington. April 12.-The United
States supreme court has decided the
case of the State of Minnesota VS.. the
Northern Securities company and the
Northern Pacific and Great Northern
Railway companies, involving the
validity Of the merger of the two rail-
road companies, holding that it was
without jurisdiction and reversing the
opinion of the court below.
Justice Harlan, who delivered the
opinion, said that the circuit court
should not have entertained jurisdic-
ton in the case, the effect being to
remand the case to the state courts.
In delivering the opinion of the court
Justice Harlan cited the facts bearing
on the origin and history of the case,
saying that originally the suit was in
stituted by the state in it's own court,
but before an opinion could be reached
there it was, on petition of the Securi-
ties company, transferred to the cir
cult court of 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 case argued once the
supreme court ordered second hear.
ing on that point.
Justice Harlan called attention to
the fact that the proceeding was for
the purpose of enforcing both the
state laws and the federal antitrust
act, saying that the circuit court could
not have taken jurisdiction if only the
state statutes had been involved.
Analyses the Federal Law.
Taking up the federal law and an
alyzing its provisions he said it was
clear that the case did not belong to
any of the clauses provided for by it.
cit is,' he said, mot criminal pro-
ceeding; nor suit in equity in the
name of the United States to restrain
violations of the antitrust act; nor q
proceeding in the name Of the United
States for the forfeiture of property;
nor an action by any person or cor.
poration for the recovery of threefold
damages for injury done to business
or property by some other person or
corporation"
The contention that the case in
volved proprietary interests of the
state was not allowed to influence the
opinion. On that point the court said,
in part:
''The injury on account of which the
present suit was brought is at most
only remote and indirect; such an in.
jury as 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 be-
tween interstate carriers engaged in
business in such state. II Minnesota
may, by an original suit in its name,
invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit
court because alone of the alleged re-
mote 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 carriers within its linn
its, then every state upon like grounds
may maintain, in its name, in a circuit
court IF the United States, suit
against interstate carriers engaged in
business within their respective lim-
it's
The court also refused to hold that
Minnesota's dignity or rights as a
state would be affected under article
Nv. of the federal Constitution by per-
hitting the stock of corporations of
that state to be held by an outside cor
poration like the Securities company.
Justice Harlan said the court did not
think that the article Of the Constitu-
ton had any bearing whatever on the
question. He said in conclusion:
"For the reasons stated we are Of
f apn words a. 8 rs e. 2 e Re Yfs
and substantially involve q dispute or
controversy within the jurisdiction of
the circuit court for the purpose Of a
final decree. That being the case the
circuit court, following the mandate
Of the statute, should not have pro-
ceeded therein, but should have re-
manded the case to the state court
1.-The decree Of the CIRCUIT court is
reversed and the case is sent back
with directions that it be remanded to
the state court" re.s.
The opinion Of the court was u,ani-
nous. ~~-> -----~
DATE FOR ADJOURNMENT.
Both Houses Of Congress Thought to