New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1904-04-13
Case REMANDED
TO STATE courts
SUPREME COURT HANDS DOWN
DECISION INVOLVING VALID
ITY OF RAILWAY MERGER.
HOLDS GOVERNMENT
HAS NO JURISDICTION
Justice Harlan Delivers Unanimous
Opinion in Case of Minnesota VS..
Northern Securities Company
Regard It as Victory for State.

washington, April 1.-THE United
States supreme court Monday decided
the case of the state of Minnesota VS..
the Northern Securities company and
the Northern Pacific and Great North
ern 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 Jurisdiction in the case, the
effect being to remand the case to the
state courts
Synopsis Of Opinion.
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 instituted by the state in it's
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 con-
troversy arose over the right to re-
move to the federal court, and after
hearing the case argued once the su-
preme court ordered a second hearing
on that point.
Justice Harlan called attention to the
fact that the proceeding was for the
purpose of enforcing both the state
laws and federal antitrust act, say
ing that the circuit court could not
have taken jurisdiction if only the
state statutes had been involved.
The court also refused to hold that
Minnesota's dignity Or rights as A
state would be affected under article
w. of the federal constitution by per-
hitting the stock of corporations Of
that state to be held by an outside
| corporation like the Securities COM
pany. Justice Harlan said the court
did not think that the article of the
constitution had any bearing whatever
on the question.
The opinion of the court was unani-
nous.
Victory for Minnesota.
St. Paul, Mimi, April 1.-THE SUI
preme court decision in the case of Min
nesota against the merger is consid-
cred by the states legal officers a vir-
tual victory for the state, although it
puts the litigation back exactly where
it was when the suit was first begun.
This was the original suit against the
| merger, begun before the federal gov
eminent began its action. 1t was trans
ferred from the state to the federal
court. Judge Lochran, in the federal
district court, took jurisdiction without
| much question, and decided the case on
| it's merits against the state. The United
States supreme court now says virtually
| that Judge Lochran should not even
have assumed Jurisdiction, much less
| decided that the merger was a legal
corporation that could not be reached
| by the laws of Minnesota. The suit
| now goes back to the state courts. The
attorney generals office, in view of the
| the supreme court, may decide to drop
| the litigation. But it is considered
| probable that it will be pushed, in order
| to secure test of the constitutionality
of the state law forbidding the consoli-
! dation of parallel and competing lines
| Of railroads The state and the merger
attorneys both joined in urging upon the
United States supreme court that the
federal courts had jurisdiction, and the
state filed supplementary brief sup
porting that view.