The Ward County independent. [volume] (Minot, Ward County, N.D.) 1902-1965, 1909-09-30
large cash assessment. Soon after

large cash assessment. Soon after
the legal formalities OF its incorpor-
atom had peen completed, the North
ern Securities company began bust
ness, and it's board of directors adop-
ted general resolutions empowering
'ts oh(cers to purchase for it all
Great Northern stock offered at the
price Oh $3.50 per share OF 500, pay
able in its own stock, at par, and all
Northern Pacific common stock Of
fered it at the price of $115 per share
OF 800, payable in like manner. This
price for Great Northern was con-
siderably below the average market
cash pr.ce for some months previous,
or since.
Shortly after commencement by
Northern Pacific of the proceedings
for retirement of it's preferred stock,
the Union Pacific interests offered to
the Northern Securities company
their entire holdings IT ooht prefer
red and common, aggregating $751;
100000, nar value, for the lump sum
of $91 ,4O7 500, payable, As to $751;
491, 971, in the stock OF the Securities
company, It par, and the remainder,
sS,915,G29, in cash. The offer was &C
cepted, and the transaction closed on
November IS, 1901. The retirement
of the preferred was completed on
June /, 1902, and its legality, dis
puted by some parties at the time,
has since been sustained by the
courts Weidenfield VS.. Northern Pa
c.fic Ry. CO., 1923 Fed. Rep, p. 300.
Mr.. Hill and his associates sup
posed these transaction to be entire
ly free from objection, either under
federal or state laws; but they were
soon surprised by readlng IN the
newspapers, man festo by the then
governor OF the State of Minnesota
asserting the Illegally of their en-
terprise under Minnesota statutes,
and announcing that the state would
institute legal proceedings to stop IT.
This announcement was followed,
within a few weeks, by formal appll-
cation Vt the state to the Supreme
court OF the United States for leave
to begin an orig nal suit, in that
court, against the Northern Secur-
tiles company. The application was
denied on jurisdict:onal grounds. lS4
U. S., p. 1919.
Efforts by the governor and other
nersOns largely interested in rival
railroad systems Of this and foreign
country, to induce the president OF
the United States to direct institu-
ton OF proceedings under the act
of congress commonly called the
Sherman Act, were successful, and,
in March, 1902, the government
brought suit, under that act against
the Northern Secur ties company, in
the circuit court of the United States,
for the Minnesota district. In March
of the following year the suit was
heard at st. Louis, before a bench
of four rcuit judges of the United
States; with the result that a de-
cree was entered adjudging that all
the Great Northern and Northern Pa
cific shares held by the Securities
company had been acquired and were
being held 10y it in violation of the
Sherman Act, and enjoinlng further
voting or receiving dividends upon
the shares. 100 Federal Reporter, p.
721.
The Northern SECURITIES company
appealed from this decree to the SUI
preme court of the United States,
where the case was heard before the
full bench of nine judges, in jan
uary, 1904. In March, 1904, the case
was decided; the court being divided
in opinion. The chief just ce and
L..ree justices were for reversal, four
other justices were for afflrmance
upon grounds stated in an opinion
by one of them; and the rema ming
justice was also for affirmance upon
different grounds stated in a separ-
ate opinion by himself. 191 U. S.
p. 1855.
Shortly after rejection Of it's suit
by the sureme court Of the United
States, the State of Minnesota be-
gan one of a similar nature, in one
OF it's own courts, against tho Secur-
tiles company and the two railway
companies. Immediately after its
commencement this suit was remov-
ed into the circuit court OF The Unit
ed States for the District of Mime
sofa, where, in June, 1909, it was
heard on substantially the same evil
dence as that in the government
suit, and decided in favor OF The de-
PENDANTS on all points. TIE state ap-
,nealed to the supreme court Of the
United States, where, without ex-
iess on of opinion on ne merits,
the suit was ordered to Il" remanded
to the state court for want of jur-
isdictlon in the federal courts. 1874
U. S p. 4S.
immediately after announcement of
l. IA.