| Show 0 r j K ff M H STATE ATE IN SUPREME I COURT for Leave to Fie File Bi Bill of Complaint Against Northern n Securities Co o Renew Renewed ed To Prevent Merger I the United Jan Jou crt t today AW Aty I SUP lb his v vurl lor I en Ie 10 e 1 bi ot I I b ot of the t a against Ins ab Ir ne hal curlIS In the therl rl I C Ih o e Wr m ot th Northern I t f II on d df r lemu wih rl to tho lu lui i hu I glen Inquired by the court nt u Fuller b announced 1 that tl In ld f J Fuler this mutton would upon moton 1 ti r a 1 I 11 ho tho nil ns us case under the I 1 of D Du m In 1 I tv IK completed I u b ease had been the preceding was rec don Douglass ej Atty II u malo hl hI In sup lp In tor r vo to tu nl 10 his 01 I II S Inde the t in ui of the rights ts ot tho th 1111 t file Ie on un original suit Hult In 11 this BASIS DASIS OF he complaint bases ilk li request for tor Ie w 0 me and present Its ls bill bi of ot coin COI i 3 of ot the mi upon 4 of ot the Ibe l Wales which i jurisdiction to this mull In ni between bel citizen of an un state a I C men a I Int Q t t all uP u lon n congressional en aim 1 7 at ot IhlI statutes ot oC thu tho United I of or a n state stat to Invoke the Jur Juru u a Q court to protect Us UsK Il rights In K Pt M t und un ant an against citizens of 1 fc long been recognized rt co tit jv f Itale of Minnesota tf owns upward Up of oC oCt 11 t t at res of land within Its Is i Midi kh i to or UI in tho ter it rr ne tl ed by y tho two vail vaili Ial i lu and the Is dc de dee upon H e luI entirely it r h of ot this land tn In ui i rn ot transportation fa fn 1 j ilU u The value of o these thes t i m nr ir will be great 1 l by hy tho Ie It i i ke u suto Sl t derived from IOU t in of ot InRI luc t t 11 us iK the performance of ot otYe tho Jur ju v Ye it I KI dative H ui W 11 will 1 be lY Im In t ie u mif i ed with ith by reason son of ot i The he state t hl hay it nr millions I Ii i Pt lm t W as 18 ot n co Gh GhI I C iii I e U and an maintaining parallel I ironing 1 lines of oC railway within iti In of or which railway linen c ui l i I 01 01 Controlled by ly either l II u ld iti or Northern Pacific 41 t It I Is therefore Hub ir N tim hal im II state Mole of at Minnesota Is so 30 in In its Il individual capac li II 11 lit he cl matter of ot this to maintain the same IM I u I AS PARENS Tt Th state Blate aleo claims tho right to tor r m i this Ibis action as parens 1 I or ot all allt t t n A WIY portion If It Itt 1 t MI of or the i dl en of Minnesota tie lie materially I injured by I the con liln or anil ani the removal ot com comi I i tin In freight und passenger rates nth MK of ot owned and fd J by the two Iwo companies Wo s it II that this court COUlt Wil that lie of ot the state generally will willus wi us nh injury by the tha removal 01 I in and passenger rat the state stale Presumably It I 1 I of this principle that l adopted law of the tle state ot of lun r Ih ment of which form torm n nHi f Hi Ia toll Is fur tor the relief are aref lre f statutes th pro 10 M punishment nt for their violation a r not nt only not It penal but we Uk form furm a part pirt of ot tho contract which f I I UI st t the to 10 maintain union 1 both in Is I individual en cn enn n 11 0 ot P rens no of ot the tho two railway whose properties ld lands lunts h to lie III havu been r i d by tho state ItalO of ot ln t tU r to b or to elst aB lS corpora M m and nid to exercise v Iel Sy or nt It Is a v I i lente principle of oC law that tho thoi I i of or a to a aM ao aIlon M Ilon bOlE o nd are n 0 part of oC harter of a Corporation created In Into It 1 to do 10 business In II such luch tU T In a part of or the UI consider the for I t lh ri 10 bl hI n corporation and andi I Je iwer and as ns asi i i In tnt I an agreement on v It of Rurh fh corporation Its ls that it I an i th tb y will ob obI t I n t the te II I of t the state relating wl to IN LAND fl a 1 bhe borno Iro ln In 1 I In nd d di I I 0 I e the I hi t i he the of ot Minnesota I If over ten len millions s si Una d i t I order to cure tho const ruc J r of or tom fomo ot f the 1 I t lines b either elhorn at or Northern n Norther 7 A of r the eo eor cou couI I which r Mate received for tor torr wal r r wt QI the of ot I ar t al their stockholder Ir I 11 of be bes I aM s nil d by cor cori I BUel i I as parallel competing of Ih wf the state r t ng 10 1 cor tr tra n tor n thirty tl n n 0 In I b r h any 1 I p fb a i t eVer taHe bei be beitl betna tl v r J l of I I 0 h d e one onelar tn lar i 1 OI a i dc do dot t H d I Itte for right to be to exercise M I i f BU e I fre nd open I Irr r I I r t t li 11 f bV blen mn Much corpora b a I lon ot statute e of th hehs Or of Ih Cr nl wel hereof With the J I RI 01 Contend RIve the 10 t lt maintain nn on nUon vo r The I tt au In 1 o a Ie the III t r ti tia tip a ac y II to or en n I Ita In Il 11 I I I capacity ns the tho r representative of ot Its I I citizens to maintain his hil action In any COUlt ot of competent WHAT MINNESOTA Tho state ot Minnesota In attempting to enforce Its II statutory right and remedy by b means mean ot of this action Is not this court to enforce anything contrary to 0 tho declared public policy of at Norv NoY JerRO or 01 of the tho national eov gov eminent Tho declared public policy of or New Jersey Jerley tho United States Id II against the tho consolidation and unification tion tOI ot competing lines of ot railway and tho removal of ot competition In freight and an passenger rates This policy lu II In the law of the United which ha been Iten before this hI court on oc occasions It 1 bill 11 be hc noticed d that the statute ot Minnesota prohibits not only the Iho con consolidation ot tho thu property and railway lines of ot competing companies COln but It nl alMo o prohibits the tho consolidation of ot the tock fit of such Buch railway companies In 1 any uny anyway way WI whatever This hl statute Is a purl purl of ot the th general law of o the th tho formation of railroad corpora corporations tons and Is I an nn obligation or limitation which enters Into and forms torm u l part of or ortho tho stockholders contract with wih tho state and Ula Is It binding upon tho Northern Securities company hlf company cannot complain of ft an nn en enforcement of ot this contract obligation or orthe orthe the statutes because It claims to tobe be 11 a stockholder r In these railroad com companies Tho ho Northern Securities com COI ns as declared by b Its Is articles of ot In Incorporation corporation was WIH organized to the stock of companion In tho of at Now New Jersey J rcy or other othet tate state In the the union and to vote volo the tho name Raie From Fro I this Jt follows that stool of ot a n railway ra I 11 company acquired by It outside the of ot Now New Jersey Is 1 sub Rub Jeet to all al obligations or limitations Im Imposed posed upon mich eh ts well wel as lS the corporation Issuing I It I SITUATION SUMMARIZED The Tho situation ran Qan thus thul be The Th holders holder of ot n 1 majority of ot the stock stoll of t hulo two IWU railroad cor authorized to 10 construct and maintain lines within the tM t the tho Mot of have hlo organised a 1 In another state for tor the he I l of ot consolidating the th linen 1111 property of ut such companies nn und in violation gf Q laws la of o tho state of ot Minnesota which upon 1 Jm ct H r IW Ue I If III U tc lOP erty owned conti oiled by l the rail railroads roads thus hul Bought to he Iho only way WiY in which the mai talt can enn reach rench such luch nn on evasion of ot Its Ita laws lawi and I enforce Is rights Is I to bring an nl action In this court ourt the Instrument or menus means by hy which such Much consolidation I Is II sought to bo If I the state of oC Minnesota cannot avail Ial Itself of ot th original of or this court C lt to enforce o Its right It I cannot go II nn the state ot ut New Jersey and ni ask the courts courtl of ot that slate statu to tn enforce Its rights be because I cause reasons urged the Jurisdiction Jurl of ot this court could be he urged a with lh equal force torce the courts court of New Jersey Jerley The Th bill that this tint 1 about miles mils of ot railroad ton furnishes nil ul the trans transportation facilities fl el le available to tl the people of seven seen different states 1 of ot the Union which coven states embrace more than thon of the entire Hru of o the United States and nn nearly ono one twelfth t of l Us Il population THE STATES STATI S If It what is attempted to lo be bo done dOle here Uie he con can bo be successfully accomplished states of ot this thil union ullon nr or powerless to TUo national enforce such statutes 10 government go under Its IR present Pr constitutional COIt limitation cnn can enact no leg emu emulation II lation which will wi protect com coni merca Int o and against such a 0 monopolistic consolidation as al IB 18 re rc referred ton tc to In this bill bi The only practical pr the state can protect Itself U 13 Uby way wn th cal Iselt by the adoption of or of ot th character In sought Bought to t he be enforced In which action the only in III nUon that can be bc enforced the circum circumstances stances disclosed In this bill hili Is the on OIl onto to which wI now appeal U It seams to I tin that there Is a I contrail sv between the state of ot Minnesota anil the defend defendant nd ant corporation a citizen of C the of ot Now Jewey which under the con COli provision referred to entitles the state of o Minnesota ola to ti the the tho Jurisdiction of or this court In fact of ot In only Judicial tribunal this Is 1 tho wIll well which the state of ot Minnesota can Its lis claim and presen Its It con the Ih defendant ln A WEnS x Mr W D QI Northern Securities company med filed a n with the court outlining po 10 position the bill of oC complaint pillon proposed to be tiled on behalf of ot tho at does not pre present sent nt n controversy of ot a n civil I v II Judi Judicial cial nature between a and n citi cUI citizen zen of ot another state Ie Justifiable In this court and that no 10 can call upon lIpon this thle court to 10 enforce its penal or po police police lice laws Ios in other states Hence tm court 18 without lIholt Jurisdiction jurl Tho rho bill the he said tn to restrain by Injunction a n citizen of New from f there ere nel which are entirely lawful I tul according to her he laws and which are by her statu statutory tory policy simply Imph those tholO nets nc violate or evade or ur tend ten l to 10 circumvent tho public or penal pen l vr police laws of Minnesota the complainant stat Thero Is h e continued no suggestion that tho nets Mill of ot not en un entirely In the state of New Jer Jersey within cor Ivy sey or It I not Ilot porn Ie powers of ot the tho defendant cor corporation a III nn mont company to nc hold tl of o railway of ot com complaint Th plaint is III the aile violation In New NI of o certain contained In the tho statute of It Minnesota Hence he h th thet t the Injunction prayed for uld be more mort or t than an order compelling the S com om to lb In New Jersey Jerse the tho laws las laso of o HP MIf 1 attention to tn the tho fact thit ro relief Is sought the Grat Railway company rom nn or the tM Northern Pacific both hoth ore of o the state of Minnesota ota therefore tote within the jurisdiction of th courts of that state This was RI taken he said na a confession that neither of or th co po had sinned against the ho or tho tion of oC Minnesota He 1111 pointed out olt that as neither of these companies Is III a 1 party to tu the tho suit no could coul bo 1 granted against them APPEAL FOR fOIt HEATHS S RIGHTS In conclusion Mr contended ll ll for tor the continuance cont of Qt tho policy which halt had ho said during thu history of at the government of ot allowing eaph state to control II own affairs without Interfering on ou the tho part of tho federal Judiciary |
