for an injunction on the ground that the combination was contrary to the laws of the state and would prevent competition. It was said that Mr. Childs was supported by the practically unanimous sentiment of the people of Washington and Montana. The matter came before the Supreme Court on suit by one Pearsall, a stockholder of the Great Northern, and this tribunal held that the combination was contrary to the laws of Minnesota and should, therefore, be enjoined, affirming the principle for which Mr. Childs contended.[619] This settled the fate of the Adams reorganization plan; and an entirely new scheme had to be devised. But while once more progress toward reorganization seemed to have ceased, sensational developments occurred in the factional conflicts to which we have already referred. To Mr. Ives, barred from all participation in the management of the road, denied a salary, and unable to obtain the removal of the receivers by Judge Jenkins, came the idea of appealing to another court. It will be remembered that, the original receivership suit had been instituted in the circuit court of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and that that court ever since had been regarded as possessing primary jurisdiction. Since no compulsion existed on other courts to recognize this jurisdiction of the Milwaukee court, the orders of which were supreme in its own district only, and the smooth working of the receivership was due to a respect for “comity,” it was possible, as Ives well knew, for any circuit court along the line to throw existing arrangements into the direst confusion. Relying on this fact, President Ives sent the General Counsel of the company to present applications for the removal of the receivers to one court after the other along the road.[620] In September, 1895, judges willing to take jurisdiction were found in Seattle, in the far northwestern corner of the United States.[621] Petition was made in two parts: first, that the Seattle court take jurisdiction; second, that it remove Messrs. Oakes, Rouse, and Payne. Judge Hanford of the Federal Court of the Washington District called Judge Gilbert of the United States Circuit Court to sit with him, and deciding on the question of jurisdiction first, according to the request of the receivers, the two judges held that the principle of comity did not of necessity apply in the Northern Pacific case because no part of the railroad was within the jurisdiction of Judge Jenkins’s court, and any court along the road could more properly and efficiently administer the trust. The court, therefore, directed the receivers to answer the charges of malfeasance, and to file their answers in Seattle by October 2; also to file their accounts with the clerk of the court at Seattle,[622] and to file each a $100,000 bond.[623]