New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-04-12
MERGER SUIT DISMISSED.
.Supreme Court Sends 1t Back to
Minnesota Tribunals.

,-s,,a Court to-day decided the case OF the state
OF Minnesota against the Northern SECURITIES CoIh-
4 psnv and the Northern Pacihc and Great NoFt-e,H
! Ps,lv-av co,rparies involving the validity OF the
mercer Of the TWO railroad companies. holding that
II was without jurisdct on. and reNeFsHs INC O'''
ion OF the court below. 1870
/ 7, delivering the opinion OF the court Jusuce
Harlan cited the Facts bearing on the orelh anu
,,o-v 81 the case saying that originally the SUI
vas instituted BY the State IN its own court puI
that before an opinion could be reached lheie "
was on petition OF the securities company 80 e..
fs-rad 70 the Circuit Court for the District OF Mill
4 ,,g,-s IN. which II was dismissed. Much conuo-
,ersv arose over the right to remove 10 the Ieue.4
cour1 and after hearing the case argued once lHe
supreme Court ordered a second hearing On 'H''
point -. 49,.
the rroceesinE was for the purpose OF enforcing
both the state laws and the federal Anu u9'
act saving that the Circuit Court oould not haN9
taken jurisdiction II only the State statutes h"u
been involved Taking up the federal law anu
eravzfnc its provisions he said 1t was clear thar
the case did not belong to any OF the classes pro-
yided for by Il. 1t is" he said. not criminal
pyoceedinE nor A suit in equity in the name OF tlo
United States 10 restrain violations OF lle <1n1
Trust act nor a proceeding in the name OF tho
United States for the forfeiture or property Hoi
an action by any person or corporation LOT INC
coverv Of threefold damages for Injury zone TO
business or property by some other person OF COT
r,orafiou =" The contention that the case involved
PROPRIETARY interests Of the State was not allowed
to influence the opinion. On that point tho court
said in part:
The injury on account Of which the present SUIT
was brought IS most only remote ana inoItcti
such an injury as would come allHs: %C1Un n- ~
property in state by reason OF me suPpIessIpIi
IL violation o. the act o. SOIsrT ;rs ENGAGED in
business in such State II Minnesota may, Dy az
original suit in its name invoke the urisicti9n OF
The Circuit Court. because alone OF the alleged re
mote and indirect injury TO us pI9pee rnefitioP
in trade and commerce as carried on by interstate
Ike grounds may maintain in its name, In a cir
cult court Of the United states, SUIT aganss III, n
terstate carriers engaged IN business WITHIN 'he''
respective limits.
/ The court also refused to hold that Minnesotas
dignity or rights as q State would be affected IN
der Article " Of the Federal Constitution by per
hitting the stock Of corporations Of that State 10
he held by an outside corporation like the securi-
! ties company. Justice Harlan said the court did
not think that the article OF the Constitution had
any bearing whatever on the question adding;
END sat STATE are to be guided when question arises
+ in the progress Of pending suit as to the Itttu
ans oT Tsaars and judicial proceedings OF State
other than that in which the court is sitting
He said IN conclusion:
For the reasons stated. We arc Of opinion that
lS5-really and substantially involve dispute or
o1I o W Pg4pos s Of nai deere That being
the case the Circuit Court following ne nHsnaaIe
but should have remanded the cause 70 the state
s s35 The Hss Is sent back with directions that It
. be remanded TO the State court
The opinion Of the court was unanimous
St Paul April 1.-THE Supreme Court decision
IN the case Of Minnesota against the railway nler-
ger IS considered by the State legal officers virtual
victory for the state although Il puts the litigation
hack exactly where II was when the suit was begun.
This was the original suit against the merger. and
4 BEGAN before the federal government took action
II was transferred from the State 20 the federal
! court. Judge Lochren. in the Federal District
! Court assumed Jurisdiction, and decided the case
on its merits against the State. The United States
/ s,rrer,e Court now SAYS virtually that Judge
Iochren should not have assumed jurisdiction, and
should not have decided that the merger was a
legal corporation that could not be reached by the
/ laws OF Minnesota The suit now goes back 10 the
1 State courts The Attorney Generals Office, IN
view Of the dissolution OF the merger ordered by
the Supreme Court. may decide to drop the Itiga-
ton but It Is considered probable that Il will be
pushed IN order 10 secure a test OF the consttu-
onaltv Of the State law forbidding the consolida-
ton OF parallel and competing lines OF railroad.
The state and the merger attorneys both Joined
In urging on the United State Supreme Court that
the federal courts had jurisdiction, and the State
fled supplementary brief supporting that view.
one o. the attorneys for the State in the merger
sui; said:
The Supreme Court. in deciding the federal case.
which involves the facts in the State case.
Specifically decided that the acquisition Of the cap
4 itaI stock Of the two railway companies by the
Northern Securities company Ia Ine manner 1 som
planned Of was in violation of the laws OF the state
Of Minnesota thus deciding the main contentious Of
+ the State IN the federal case.
Il Is said by attorneys that the reversal OF Judge
Io-lren by the Supreme Court viii compel the de-
the case was removed from the State to the Federal
Court