Show j INJUNCTION DISSOLVED Federal Judge Sets Aside Restraining Order NORTHERN PACIFIC CASE UP Action Transferred From the Minnesota Min-nesota State Court to tho United States Circuit CourtAnswer of the Railroad Company a Lengthy i i Document After Decision Was I Rendered the Court Refused Plaintiff I Plain-tiff a Sup rsed ai BondAttorneys Declare Tight Has Just Commenced Minneapolis Dec 31JudSc William Lochrcn of the United States Circuit court today dissolved the temporary injunction I I in-junction Issued In tho case of Peter Power against the Northern Pacific Railway company by Judge Elliott of x tho District court of Hcnncpin county I H Monday GOES TO FEDERAL COURT The case was transferred late Monday Mon-day night by the Northern Pacific from tho Stato to the Federal court and any an-y order to show cause returnable this T morning while the temporary injunction 1 injunc-tion granted by Judge Elliott should A 1 not be dissolved was secured from Judge Lochren and served late last e night upon Mr Powers attorney The Jf J t answer ot tho defendant was filed in j tho District court and an order removing re-moving the same to the Federal court was served upon Judge Brooks of tho b Hennepin District court ANSWER A LENGTHY ONE The Northern Pacifics answer was a S lengthy document of thirtytwo typewritten I type-written pages and ostensibly was prepared pre-pared on n few hours notice All of the legal staff of the railway was on hand at the calling of the casein case-in Judgo Lochrens court this morning They were C W Bunn Frank Kellogg and former Judge Young of St Paul Mr Bunn admitted in his argument that ho and his colleagues were well prepared to nrguo the case and had d not been caught by surprise I Representing Mr Power were George v A Lamb of Lamb Gourncy New U York Mr Moore of Buckley Gray Moore Chicago and Attorneys Lancaster Lancas-ter and Belden Boutell of Minnesota WHAT INJUNCTION RESTRAINED ra The injunction which was dissolved oy tho order of Judge Lochrcn re errained the Northern Pacific from Issuing Is-suing I any evidences of indebtedness to retiro me preierrea Stock OL the company J com-pany or to retire the preferred stock In any other manner than by the use of the surplus net earnings of the road It also restrained the Northern Pacific i and its officers from entering into any tr agreement or doing any act by which l 1 the road would be consolidated or merged through the medium of the Northern Securities company with the Great Northern or the Burlington WHAT COURT HELD I Judge Lochren held that the Northern North-ern Pacific was acting within the au V thority of its charter of tho contract 1 entered into between it and Its stock holders as Incorporated in the certificates certifi-cates of preferred stock and of the i Ii agreement entered into November 13th I Jn attempting to retire the 575000000 T I of preferred stock in the manner all al-l 1 i I r leged by Mr Power He also held that railroad corporations l corpora-tions could not do Indirectly what the I Jaw prevented them from doing directly h r di-rectly and that any method by which f the consolidation or two or three competing ii com-peting parallel lInes would be brought about would be illcgaj and a writ ot injunction would lie to restrain the consummation of the plan but that there was nothing in the case as presented pre-sented to him that would indicate that the stockholders of tho Northern Pacific 1 Pa-cific Railway company were attempt ins such a consolidation or merger t REFJSED SUPERSEDEAS BOND After the decision was made orally by Judge Lochren at the close of a S days argument by the attorneys for r both sides an effort was made by the plaintiffs attorneys to have the court fix the amount of bond which would be required in order to appeal from r the decision and to stay all further I proceedings in the lower court pend 2 ing tho appeal Judge Lochren re fupcd to allow a supersedeas bond in j I any amount to be given PERTINENT QUESTION I Attorney W H Lancaster representing repre-senting Mr Power the plaintiff asked i I in court Does Honor t your mean to i S say that tho damage which would re SuIt to the Northern Pacific company If an appeal from your order dissolving tho temporary Injunction was taken and a auperscdeas bond staying proceedings S pro-ceedings were filed would bo ao great 4 that a bond could not be given large 1 S enough to reimburse the defendant r As the question of granting a BU S pcrsodeas the Judge replied Is discretionary dis-cretionary with the court I decline to t permit tho staying of the proceedings or the force of the order by a super I I scdeas bond on appeal r FIGHT JUST BEGUN I Mr Powers attorneys tonight au 1 thorized the statement that the light T 5 had Just commenced and that they y I I would appeal to tho United States Supreme Su-preme court NORTHERN PACIFIC MERGER Judge Lochren III his decision made a ruling which the attorneys of J J Hill maintain settles the controversy of the Northern Pacific merger Said the court 1C the Northern Pacific railroad never thought of consolidation but to stockholders and pay oft the preferred Issue common stock t it has authority to do that and that of itself would certainly have no tendency toward consolidation It Is claimed that It would place cci lain persons who are ullesred to be manipulating these stocks with a view to consolidation or mergcr in a position posi-tion In which hey would bo enabled to carry out their schemes better than If there was not a 1 retiring of the preferred pre-ferred stock That Is asserted but 1 do not see that it very clearly appears ap-pears from any of the facts that are sot forth COULD BE CARRIED OUT The mere scheme of the retiring of the preferred stQck could be carried out Just as fully If for Instance the Northern Securities company had never nev-er been thought of The same persons who own the common stock now own It without any reference to the Northern North-ern Securities company It Is not Very clear to me why they could not manage these three companies com-panies with as much reference as to doing away with competition without any such company being formed as with IL If the same persons own all or substantially all of the stock of both companies I do not see the necessity ne-cessity of forming that company simply for t of carrying that ply the purpose purpose oiit They might do It just as well without it IS A LA1VFUL PURPOSE But I do not see that the retiring of the preferred stock has anything to do of itself naturally with the formation forma-tion of the Northern Securities company com-pany If that Is an Illegal conception Of Itself the retirement of the Stock is a lawful purpose something that might properlY be done It might as well be said I think that If the men had no property at all they would be disabled from doing this unlawful thing doubtless in a greater degree than If they were prevented pre-vented from retiring this preferred stock but that would not warrant denuding de-nuding them of their property nor does it seem to me that it warrants any ocurt In saying that the Northern North-ern Pacific company and the holders of the common stock shall not be entitled en-titled to carry out its lawful contracts MIGHT ALL BE RETIRED lIt seems to me that the preferred stock may all be retired without the Northern Securities company being formed and If I It Is formed and If It Is unlawful that Its unlawfulness consists con-sists not In the retiring of this stock but In the acts whloh result In the formation of that company and placing plac-ing other securities In that company It seems to me that this Injunction should be dissolved at least so far as It assumes to prevent tho retiring of the preferred stock And I see no reason rea-son why It should be retained for any purpose |