The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-04-12

the effect of which was to end and close
the case.
The United States stands on the de-
cree as affirmed, and submits that the
court is only concerned to see that 1T
is faithfully observed by the defendants
according to it's terms.
p. G. Knox.
Attorney General.
Pleads for s'Day in Court"
Mr.. Guthrie addressed the court
briefly on this point. He said the dis
tribution as proposed by the Securi-
ties company was prejudicial to their
interests. The attorney general had
made them practically parties to the
suit. He could not now oppose their
Intervention in the case when their
interests were manifestly endangered.
When the suit was brought they were
made parties and they are bound by
the decree.
'"The ends of justice require" said
Mr.. Guthrie, that we be given one
day in court. The proposed method
of distribution is in violation of the
decree. The practical effect of such
action would be to perpetuate In
Messrs. Hill and Morgan and their as
sociates the joint control of the prop
critics."
Root Opens for Merger.
Elihu Root then opened his argu-
ment against the petition Of the in
tervenors He said:
Counsel for the Oregon Short Line
company in asking leave to file a petit
ton as intervenor has put himself
squarely in the position of person
seeking the execution of your honor's
decree; having been represented as a
defendant, opposing that decree until
it was affirmed by the supreme court
of the United States. Notwithstand-
ing that the government, as complain
ant in the action, denies the occasion
for the Intervention.
'The defendants oppose the filing
of the petition. They maintain that
Messrs. Hartman and Pierce and the
Oregon Short Line company are not
parties to the action, and cannot be-
come parties. There is no warrant
anywhere for their appearance IN the
action.
Decree Only Negative.
They seek the return to them Of the
Northern Pacific stock which they
held. 1t is difficult to discuss before
the court which rendered the decree,
the character and scope of that de-
cree. But the most marked charac-
teristic of the decree is the purely neg
alive character of the relief afforded.
After its findings Of fact, the court
makes purely negative order, enjoin-
ing the Northern Securities company
from buying or voting the stock of the
two railroads, and enjoining the North
ern Pacific and the Great Northern
from paying dividends to the North
ern Securities company. This is the
end and scope Of the decree. So long
as the defendants refrain from any of
the acts enjOined, what further exc
cution of the decree can be desired
The decree was most carefully prepared
and limited to the jurisdiction Of the
court and the necessities Of the case
junction Is Prohibitve.
"This court is not exercising general
equity jurisdiction. You are proceed
ing under the fourth section Of the
act Of 1890, which was in it's terms
prohibitive. 1t said thou shalt not,
and only thou shalt not It charged
the court with preventing the viola.
. ton of the act, and gave 1t q specia
jurisdiction never before conferred
and conferred for that purpose only
The bill filed by the attorney general
asked not only for a prohibitive or.
turn of this stock to it's original hold
ers. The decree Of the court refused
this relief, and held to the limitation!
of the statute. 1 do not hold tina
1t was not competent for you to make
any order that was necessary to give
force to this decree, but evidentl.
your honors did not consider thu
further order necessary. No othe
interference with the aHalrS OF Inl
corporation was necessary.
your hOnOrs were not silent, how
ever, on the attorney generals prayer
The opinion on which the decree wa
based permitted the transfer Of tn
stock held by the Northern Securitie
was not held necessary to direct sucl
action, but to permit 1t. This cour
did not make itself the source of au
thority for the return of this stock.
Mr.. Harrimans Position.
"Now, these other parties ask leav
to file their petition, that they may AS
you to make another decree. I ma
in passing call attention to the posi-
ton they occupy. Mr.. Hartman wa
company from the first day Q
it's corporate life. That compan
opposed this decree. The appli
cant did not remain silent, bu
as director in the Securities com
pany opposed the suit of the al
torney general. Now he appears an
asks you to reverse your former de
cree, and to modify it on one Of tn
very questions which it determined
The careful limitations which you
honors placed on the decree were
infinite satisfaction to the learned a
torney general when he supported
before the suprem court, and he is S
stated in his brief.
NeNertueless IL IL appeared 10 IN
court aff1rmatively that somethin
was about to be done which woul
render ineffective the negative pro
visions of the decree, it would
course be proper for your honors
make new decree to prevent thi
But the act of the Northern Secur
ties company does not violate the d,
cree. 1t takes the stock out of tt
hands of the company. The act
the petitioner, a stranger to the lit
cation, is not free from suspicion
disinterestedness. What business hi
he, stranger, with new four
anxiety for the enforcement of tt
ARMY TRIALS.