New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-04-05
NOT A FRIENDLY SUIT.
!. J. HILL WILL FIGHT.
But No Stock Market Contest OUer
Northern Pacific Probable.

NOrtherH PGC1fC FTOOdOLc.
The absorbing topic OF discussion IN Wall
Street yesterday the litigation begun by
the Union Pacific interests in the effort 10 re-
cover back into their own possession the North
ern Pacific stock. amounting virtually 10 con-
troll. which had been turned over TO the North
Securities Company. when that corporation
was formed I'm the fall OF 1901 That the courts
might be asked to pass upon the matter has
been indicated by the Union Pacific interests
since the announcement OF the plan for dis
tributing pro rata the Great Northern and
Northern Pacific stock holdings OF the Northern
Securities Company. they hare declared that
they were prepared to accept whatever was
legal" and only the courts settle a dispute
as to the legality OF any proposed course OF
action Yet the Street apparently taken
by surprise at the news that the question had
really been placed before court for adjudica-
ton and stock market unssttlement resulted.
the financial district jumping to the conclusion
that had again broken out between the
Hartman Kuhn. Loeb and Hil-Morgan parties
This Inference was aided BY the rather
compromising and hostile language Of the petit
ton presented to the United States Circuit Court
in St Paul by f. II. Hartman and Winslow S.
Pierce. as trustees FOR the Oregon Short Line.
the owner OF the Northern Pacific stock ex-
changed for stock OF the Northern Securities
Company plus about $900OOO0 cash.
That an actual and vital difference ot opinion
exists as to the legality Of returning to the
Union Pacific its Northern Pacific stock hold
ings and that the Union Pacific interests Will
press for an adjudication Of that difference by
legal tribunal and the Hrl-Morgan interests
will combat the contention of the petitionins
trustees are assured. That there is really bad
blood between the two interests however. and
that anything Ike a repetition OF the destructive
market warfare of the spring OF 1901 will be
outcome OF the court contest. are by no means
rs well established although IL would be going
much too far TO assume that the litigation begun
in the name os Nessrs Hartman and Pierce Is in
the nature OF a friendly suit"
BOTH SIDES UNCOMMUN1CATIvE.
The leading interests or the opposing sides
were uncommuuicdtive yesterday. At the offices
Of J. p Morgan & co. and Kuhn. Loeb 6 Co. in
qufrers were referred to the Northern Securities
Offices President ]. J. Hill was at his office. but
declined to be seen. Colonel C1ough. the gem
eral counsel OF the Northern Securities Com
rany, was asked whether he regarded the ac-
tion as a friendly action brought to determine
certain facts upon which counsel had disagreed.
He answered. Let every man read the petit
tion and Judge for himself
Asked II he would make any answer to the
statements I'm the Hartman petition. Colonel
ClouGh said:
Wen make our answer in court. and It will
be good one.'
Ex-Attorney General John W. Griggs. who
formerly of counsel for the Northern Sc
curities Company. was asked about the reason
for the request in the application OF Mr.. Harri-
man that witnesses should not be sworn. He
said it was not at all uncommon. 1t did not
mean that the action would be a friendly one
oil
ties which were the reason for the clause Mr..
Griggs said. One Of these was that the exami-
nation Of witnesses without the oath being
given made the proceeding more informal and
in the nature of an investigation. When under
oath the statements made are binding upon the
party that called them.
II is supposed that the answer to be made
by the defendants named IN the Hartman
Pierce petition viii set up the contention that
distribution Of the Northern Pacific and Great
Northern shares to their original owners is an
lmpossibiIity. because Of the fact that North
ern Securities stock. representing those shares.
has been bought and sold In the curb market
for long ti-ne. many OF the blocks OF shares
having passed through many hands and been
divided in such q way that attempt to trace
their ownership back TO the beginning would be
an lmpossibility. II Is also thought that the
testimony of Mr.. Hartman as 10 having sold
.
Co. an alleged transaction referred TO also by
John s. Kennedy in his testimony in the Peter
Power case. will be feature OF the answer to
be put i'm by Mr. Hill and his associates.
NEUTRAI.S MAY INTERVENE
There were unconfirrned and untraCed rurnors
yesterday that petition asking leave to inter
vene in the suit Of the United States against the
Northern Securities Company might be filed bv
stockholders allied with neither side who have
bought their Northern Securities stool, in the
market, and who Will demand that the present
plan OF distribution Of the stock he carried ont.
The position of arbitrage operators who have
been selling contracts for Northern Pacific
when released" is not a very happv one I'm
view OF the possibility of the Lrian Pa
cific winning the suit just begun II
the United States courts should decide that the
Union Pacific is entitled To the return OF all ths
Northern Pacific stock originally held by it