OCR Text |
Show MORE ARGUMENT ' IN SECURITIES CASE Big Lawyers "Wrangle Over the Petition Peti-tion of Haxriman and Pierce for an Injunction. ifc T PWARK, N. J., May 21. The hcar- lng of arguments on the pc- tltlons of B. H. Harrlman and Winslow S. Pierce for an Injunction Injunc-tion against the distribution of assets of the Northern Securities company, under the announced plan, was cop-tlnued cop-tlnued before United States Judge Bradford today. At the opening of court It was decided by Judge Bradford that the arguments of EUhu Root, for the Northern Securities company, and Attorney At-torney Thatcher, representing the Oregon Ore-gon Short Line bondholders, would be heard here today, and that MessvB. Guthrie and John6on will be heard on Monday at Trenton. Mr. Root then resumed re-sumed his argument begun yesterday. He' maintained that the decision of the courts did not adjudicate the plaintiffs to be the legal owners 'of the stock In Question, and that tho United States Circuit court, sitting at St. Paul, had sustained his view. The equity in the property held by people who had bought in the oporv market, he argued, must prevail against the claim of counrel for Harrlman and Pierce, and It would be entirely tmjust to these people who would be deprived of their rightful share in all the stocks. The extra 510.-000,000 510.-000,000 which would accrue to tho Harrlman Har-rlman interests, he insisted, would be at the expense of the other stockholders. stockhold-ers. "The only reason for this litigation," Mr. Root said, "Is this: Northern Pacific Pa-cific stock has gone up from 115 to 135, whereas Great Northern has dropped from ISO to 170. The complainants want to get back their Northern Pacific because they make ten million dollars." After reading from the Supreme court opinion several paragraphs bearing upon up-on the dissolution of the company, Mr. Root said the plan of the return of the stock was tentative. It had been suggested, sug-gested, but was not a plan to the exclusion ex-clusion of any other plan, but one which seemed entirely equitable. Judge Bradford Brad-ford asked: "If the Securities company com-pany did not acquire equitable ownership of the shares, how could the company be Justified In treating that as Its property which was not its property? prop-erty? There seems to be a paradox In the situation." Mr. Root replied: "The opinion of the Circuit court treats of the Securities company as owner of the stock in question. Also in Justice Harlan's opinion, It is set forth that the Securities Securi-ties company was the owner of the stock, thus approving the opinion of the Circuit court. It is so described In Justice Jus-tice Harlan's opinion as a holding corporation and trustee and custodian, having title to represent the combination combina-tion There can be no question of the title of the company. The Intent of the two parties was to confer title upon the company. Whatever the rights may be of those Joining in the combination, tho Supremo court decree shows no disposition dispo-sition to interfere with them." |