Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-01-23
Roads Officials Enjoined From
Making Proposed Increase
OF Capital Stock.
MINNESOTA WINS A VICTORY.
Every Point Raised by the State is
Sustained by the Courts
Decision.

ST. Paul. Jan. 2a.--In the Ramsey
county district court today Judge Oscar
Hallam signed an order enjoining the
officials of the great Northern Railway
company from making the proposed in
crease of ss0,OO0,0O0 worth of additional
stock of that company or issuing the
same or part thereof during the pend
ing litigation without first making an
application in writing thereof to the
Minnesota railroad and warehouse
commission and securing its approval
thereof. as provided by section 2s72 of
the revised laws of 9105
This is victory thus far for the state
in the action brought last month by
Atty. Gen, Young to compel the rail-
road to recognize the state railroad and
warehouse commission before issuing
the stock as the laws provide that be-
fore a railroad can issue an increase of
Its capital stock it must make applca-
ton to the state railroad and warehouse
commission and make a showing of the
necessity for such an issue. The
Great Northern railroad claimed under
it's original charter II could issue stock
at will and that the law granting this
power TO the railway and warehouse
commission was unconstitutional.
Judge Hallam In his memoranda ac-
companying the injunction says:
THE Great Northern railroad pro-
poses an increase of s60.000.0O0 to its
capital stock, the resolution authoriz-
ing such an increase of stock provides
that II shall be created and issued for
the following general purposes:
First, to provide funds for further
and additional equipment; second, to
provide funds for additional terminals
and facilities on existing lines, includ-
ing second main track and for the re-
duction of grades and improvements OF
lines; third, TO acquire the bonds and
stocks of eight different railroad COM
panics which are named, and fourth, TO
acquire such securities as the board OF
directors may from time to time auth
orjze to be acquired, The capital stock
of tha defendant is now Sl0Q,oO0Q00. The
state comedies that under the general
| laws of the state, the defendant may
| lawfully increase its stock subject TO
! the regulation mentioned. The court
| says the injunction was asked TO COM
| pei the company 10 submit TO this regu-
lation which the defendant does not
propose to do. Therefore, the court
holds there is but one issue raised in thu
case and the ultimate right OF the rail-
sue of stock Is not involved In Its ac-
ton The court says the contention
of the state is based upon section 2s72
of the revised laws OF 1905 originally
enacted as chapter POS OF the general
laws of 1857. The language of the orig
inal act of 1887 does not differ in sub
stance from the language of the Sec
ton of the revised statutes.
Judge Hallam quotes the original
statute and says.
THE Great Northern Railway com
pany was originally Incorporated as the
| Minneapolis & 81. Cloud Railroad COM
pany under a special charter granted
by the territorial legislative assembly
| in 1856. Section of this act provides
that 1.-THE capital stock of the CORPORA
| ton hereby created shall be 80 900, 900.
| and the directors OF said corporation
may with the consent of the holders OF
a majority thereof increase the capital
stock thereof TO such sum as may be
necessary or convenient to carry into
effect all the rights and privileges here
by granted thereto, not exceeding $2O,-
000.0O0
'',rhere Is no authority here TO is
sue stock in any event I'm excess OF
$4,000 900. But this charter was
amended by the state legislature in
1865 BY an act which. among other
things. provided that said company
sue in such manner and on such
terms as 1t may deem exDedietnt one
or more classes of preferred stock,
and TO make such agreements as 1t
NAV deem proper with the respective
holders thereof. as TO the dividends
thereon.
This Il the provision relied on to
| give the defendant the right to issue
stock without limit In my judgment
II does not do so.
THE court holds that the doctrine
that subsequent enactments could re-
peal the law OF 1887 governing the
company's stock issues does not hold
sinee those subsequently passed SPEC
oihoally state that they shall in no
wise repeal any existing laws govern
ing the issue of stock.
The courts decision sustains every
point raised by the state. There We're
no questions OF fact before the court
they being admitted. and while tech
nicallv there should be a further trial
on hearing for an order making the
injunction permanent, 1t IS thought
by the attorney generals department
that the next move VIII be an appeal
Ia the supreme court 10 determine the
constituiionality of the law ana the
correctness Of judge Hallam's ruling.