The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-04-12
HOLDS FEDERAL COURT
HAS NO JURISDICTION
Justice Harlan, Speaking for the Court,
Sends Case Back to Minnesota.

| WASHINGTON d. c., April IL
| 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 Railway companies, in
Volving the validity of the merger of
the two railway companies, holding
that itowas without jurisdiction and
| reversing the opinion of the court be-
low.
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.
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 its own court,
but that before an opinion could be
reached there 1t was, 9on petition of
the Securities company transferred to
the circuit court of the district of Min
nesota, by which court it was dis
missed. Much controversy arose over
the right to remove to the federal
court, and after hearing the case ar
gued once the supreme court ordered
a second hearing on that point sa9
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. TAX,
Ing up the federal law and analyzing
its provisions, he said it was clear that
the case did not belong to any of the
classes provided for by 1t. He said:
It is not a criminal proceeding. nor a
suit in equity in the name of the United
States to restrain violations of the anti
trust act, nor a proceeding in the name
of the United States for the forfeiture Of
property. nor an action by any person or
corporation for the recovery of three fold
damages for INJURY done to business or
property by some other person or corpo-
ration.
The. contention chat the case involv-
ed proprietary interests of the state
was not allowed to influence the opin-
ion. On that point the court said:
The injury on. account of which the pres
ent suit was brought is at most only re-
mote and indirect; such an injury as
would come alike. although in different
degrees, to every individual owner of prop
erty in state by reason of the suppress
sion, in violation Of the act of congress,
of free competition between interstate
carriers engaged in business in such
state. If Minnesota may, by an original
suit in it's name. invoke the jurisdiction
of the circuit court because alone of the
alleged remote and indirect injury to its
proprietary interests arising from the mere
| absence of free competition in trade and
commerce as carried on by interstate car
rterS within its limits, then every state
upon like grounds may maintain, in it's
! name in circuit court Of the United
States a suit against interstate carriers
engaged in business within their respect
i've limits.
The court also refused to hold that
MinnesOta's dignity or rights as a state
would be affected under article of
the federal constitution by permitting
the stock of corporations of that state
to be held by an outside corporation
like the Securities company. Justice
Harlan said the court did not think
that the article of the constitution had
any bearing whatever on the question,
adding:
1t only preseribes a rule by which
courts federal and state, are to be guided
when a question arises in the progress
of 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 court is sit
ting
He said in conclusion:
For the reasons stated we are of opin-
ion that the suit does MOTTO use the
words of the act of 1875-really and sub
stantially involve 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 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 unani-
nous.