The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-04-13
COMPLICATIONS
IN MERGER SUIT
United States Objects to Short
Lines Intervention.
ARGUMENT >OF ATTORNEYS
CASE WILL PROBABLY BE CON-
cLUDED TODAY.

whose names are familiar through
out the United States is being waged i'm
the United States district court before
Judge Sanborn, Vandeyanter, Hook
and Thayer, the action being based on
a motion presented TO the court by L.
H. Hartman ct al. for leave to file an
intervening petition FOR the purpose Of
showing Mhy the Northern Securities
company's officials should not carry out
a plan Of distribution Of the assets OF
the recently declared illegal Northern
Securities company IN a manner alleged
10 be inimicable 10 the interests of Har-
riman and Pierce.
Array Of Legal Talent.
The attorneys representing the plain
tits, w. ID. Guthrie. r. s. Lovett, gen
eral counsel Of the Southern Pacific
railroad; Judge J. n. Baldwin of Oma-
ma and Maxwell EVarts of Ohio
The defendants were represented by
Elihu Root, former secretary of war:
John G.. Johnson Of Philadelphia;
Francis Lynde Stetson. counsel for J.
+. Morgan & Co; George Young. Frank
Is. Kellogg and 9. A. Severance: also
{. W. Bum. general counsel FOR the
Northern Pacific. aud NJ. d. Grover.
general counsel for the Great Northern.
Beside this array Of talent the United
states government was represented by
District Attorney &. q. Houpt who
presented an objection 10 the interven-
zion. under the direction Of United
states Attorney General Knox.
Intervention a Surprise.
This intervention was something of
surprise To the petitioners. who were
NOT aware Of IT, until after Mr. EvaTts
had ODCned the case for the plaintiffs
when Judge S8nborn asked him IL he
was aware that the United states gov
eminent objected to the intervening Pc
tiuon. The court then directed Nj.
HOupt to read the objection Of MIR.
Kncx, which is as follows:
. I respectfully submit to the court
that notice had been served upon me
that Edward n Hartman, WinslOw :.
ierce and the Oregon Short Line Rail-
road company viii apply TO the judge of
this court for leave To intervene IN this
cas- and to proceed and TO be heard
I'm respect Of the final decree OF this
court entered on April 9. 1873, az af-
firmed by the supreme court OF the
United States. and for such other or
further or different order or leiief as 10
the court may deem 1T.
The United States neither admits
nor denies the allegations Of the petit
tion. but objects TO the proposed inter-
Nentton- This case was heard by this
court on bill, answer and testimony
and a final decree was entered, enloin-
ing the defendants as therein recited.
UpOu appeal by the defendants 10 the
supreme court Of the United States the
decree of this court was affirmed in
every particular. the effect of which
was 20 end and close the case. The
United States stands on the decree as
affirmed. and submits that the court IL
only concerned TO see that il Is faith
fully observed by the defendants ac-
cording to its terms.
tSigned "P- G. KNOX,
Attorney General
Contentious of Counsel.
Mr.. Evarts. in his statement, con-
tended that the SECURITIES company IN
its final distribution of the assets in
tended to take a course which would
continue the common control of the
Northern Pacific and Great Northern
railways. TO the detriment Of the plain
tiff and continued violation OF the
Sherman antitrust law.
AIr Root contended that there was
no warrant in the general rules or
practice. in the DEGREES Of the courts
uor in the statutes for this interVen-
ton He said the decree of this court
was limited 10 the simple command.
Thou shalt not" and nothing was eX-
pected but absolute obedience
The arguments of both Mr.. EYarts
and Mr.. Root occupied less than an
hours time, but every word was fol-
lowed with the closest attention by
The thr0ng OF attorneys and spectators
who crowded the court room, the gal
laries and who sat even on tables and
the steps leading 20 the tribunal.
Judge Lovett's Plea.
M. Roots argument was finished
Just before noon, and when the court
81. a I .Hre.H# u.
Kan hts argument on behalf of the pc
t!tioners He began with the conten-
ton that il the Northern Securities
eompanv had been the legal owner Of
stock of the. Northern Pacific and the
Great Northern companies II would
have been entitled IN the fruits Of that
ownership and the attorney general
would not have obtained the relief he
sought in the original suit
The foundation of the bin in that
case was that the stock had been ac-
uuired and held FOR an Illegal purpose.
The decree OF the court had determined
mat no title la the stock ever passed
To thc Northern Securities company,
because that company was not legally
capable OF holding such title. The de-
cree further had the effect OF giving
The court practical custody Of the stock
az the Northern Securities company.
The pctitioners, ne said were not
asking the courts TO wind up the af-
fairs nor dissolve the securities COM
many They were asking il 10 dispose
of the stock in what they cOntended
was the only way consistent with the
decree of the court. The plan of dis
rributiOn proposed by the Northern Sc
curities company did not dissOl the
corporation. TO simply reduced or at
tcmuted to reduce its stock in such a
manner as would leave the stockhold
er-s i'm control of both roads.
He referred to the statement OF cOun-
sci for the Northern Securities COM
pany to the effect that the company
night have sold its stock holdings. and
lenied this because the decree Of the
curt determined that it had never
,wned that stock. Ii was not neces-
AIRY to enjoin a corporation from sell
ne the stock. because IL Is not GUS
omary 10 enjOin anyone from selling
what he does not own. The stock was
ts much in the constructive custody OF
he court as If Il had seized it.
When Mr.. LOvett concluded. Former
Congressman James Hamilton Lewis OF
rhicago appeared and stated that he
represented the Continental Trust COM
,any OF New Jersey and asked TO be
ieard as an objector 10 the petition. |
The court allowed him fifteen minutes.
4e said his client was the owner of
900 shares OF the stock of the North
m Securities company and objected to
he petition being granted, because the |
curt had no jurisdiction.
The court adjourned the case until |
o o'clock tomorrow morning, when
me hour and fifteen minutes will be