The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-02-21


 (COntinued from Page One.) facts supporting these allegations. Whsle Mir. Fish may rightfully desire to remain a director of the Illinois Central. and to that end use every law ful means in the power of himself and his friends he has no right to that of flee unless he is legally elected thereto. Hence, his defeat, if 1t comes from the lack of valid votes. is no legal injury to the civil or property rights, the complainants. are not keepers of the public conscience, nor are they conser- vators of the: rights of the public. To sustain this bill, 1t Is not necessary for them to show merely that the acts complained of is a public wrong; they must also show that by the doing of such act they will suffer special injury to their civil or property rights.
 This election of directors at the com ing meeting can work no legal wrong to the complainants and no special in- jury to any of them is proved which calls for the interpretation of this court.''
 The court then declared that ths findings and opinion of the Interstate Commerce Commission are not evidence in this case, and declared that he had no power to enforce the sherman act and quoted numerous legal decisions in support of his assertion. The de- cision then continued:
 There is but one ground upon which this bill can be maintained if the Un- ion Pacific had no right to buy, hold or own stock in the Illinois Central, or the Securities Company, or. either ot them is intruding in this election whol. ly without right, then l think bona. fide stockh olders. without alleging ir. remarkable injury, may ask the court te throw them or it out.
 "This brings us to the question. ii there in the public policy of this State a prohibition against the voting by q foreign corporation of stock in a do. nestle corporation, which stock is pur. chased and paid for and holds undel an express power granted 10 1t by thu State of It's creation"
 The court declared that coTporationi her SC are not debarred from huyins and holding the stock of other cor poratIons and said that the fact tha the purchaser might be foreign cor poration and the stock that of a do nestle corporation could not change tn rule of law.
 The court denied that there is an rule of the American common law tha one corporation cannot hold stock il another corporation where the frs corporation has in its charter specih power to do so. In this case, he said it was proved ana not denied that tn Union Pacific and the Railroad Secur tties Company had express powe granted to 1t by the State of Its crea tion to buy, own, and hold, stock f. other corporations. The court then en tered upon a long and exhaustive dis cussion of various statutes regardinl the holding of stock by corporation in other corporations, declaring final ly that such holdings are not prohih Ited nor opposed to public policy. He then said:
 'sThe right of the Railroad Securitie Company to vote its Illinois Centra stock is impaired, by the fact that tn Union Pacific owns practically all c its stock. So long as the voting pow ar of the Securities Companv Is used 1 a lawful manner and for lawful puT poses, 1t issmmateriaI who owns tn stock
 Not Competing Lines. The decision further declared tha the Union Pacific and the Illinois Cen tral are not competing lines, but con meeting lines, and that the Union Pa cific under It's charter and the laws C Utah, has a clear right to own share | of stock of Illinois Central which purchased in 1906. and that it has tn | essential right to vote that stock q meetings of the stockholders of the Il | linois Central. unless the right is fol bidden by the laws or public policy ( | Illinois. On this subject he said: 1 such prohibton does not exist UT less it afarmatiyely appears. It'i