activities. The Council also opposes changing the Mineral Leasing Act to allow land-grant railroads to lease Federal coal. In general, our position is that the number one priority of the Burlington Northern should be its rail activities. BN's mineral activities should support these railroad operations, not compete against or replace these public services. That was the intent of the Federal Government when they gave the land along with the mineral rights to the railroad. If BN is allowed to abandon these lines, then they should also forfeit the mineral rights in the areas they have chosen no longer to serve. dragline. When our grandchildren see the BN emblem, I want them to see it on the side of a rail car, not a For the record, I am submitting a copy of the full text of the Dakota Resource Council's position on the Burlington Northern, adopted by the Council's board of directors on July 13, 1981. Thank you. RESOLUTION ON THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN Adopted by Vote of the Dakota Resource Council's Board of Directors - July 13, 1981. WHEREAS rail service in rural areas is vital to the agricultural economy; AND WHEREAS the land-grant railroads were provided with significant amounts of public land and minerals as an incentive to extend rail service in the West; AND WHEREAS Burlington Northern is currently planning to abandon a number of branch lines in North Dakota; AND WHEREAS Burlington Northern is currently reorganizing its operations to permit a separation of its transportation and minerals activities; AND WHEREAS legislative changes in the Mineral Leasing Act have been proposed which would allow Burlington Northern to lease federal coal; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dakota Resource Council opposes any changes in Burlington Northern's structure which would enable it to neglect its rail services while expanding its mineral activities; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dakota Resource Council opposes any change in the Mineral Leasing Act to allow land-grant railroad leasing of federal coal; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dakota Resource Council believes that the number one priority of the Burlington Northern should be its railroad activities; Burlington Northern's mineral activities should support and complement its railroad operations, not compete with or replace these vital public services. COMMISSIONER CONRAD: Thank you very much, Ray, for providing that testimony. Is there anything further that you would like to add or Mr. Nace would like to add? We can certainly include it in the record at this point. MR. MEYER: I think that concludes our testimony. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONRAD: Thank you very much. We're right at nine o'clock. Now, that's a well-run hearing, six hours of hearings and we wind up right on the hour that we had projected, so I will close the hearing. What we intend to do is to have a transcript prepared of the hearing today and then we will prepare a summary report which will be made available to other government agencies, be made available to the representatives of the groups that have testified here today and, also, will be made available to others who are interested in the kinds of testimony that has been provided. I want to once again thank everyone who has participated today. I know some of you have come long distances and gone through some sacrifice to be here. And I also know the kind of work and effort that goes into preparing testimony for a hearing like this. So, again, I want to thank everyone who has participated. I appreciate it and I think we have gone a long way towards putting together a record that can serve as a reference point as this debate unfolds. Thank you very much. (Applause) (The hearing was concluded at 9:03 p.m., the same day.) -o0o 12 13 14 Comes now the Plaintiff State of Montana and in support of this claim for relief, on its own behalf, and on behalf of the classes hereinafter alleged, and as parens patriae on 15 behalf of all injured natural persons within the jurisdiction of the court, and demanding a trial by jury, alleges 166 17 18 199 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 330 and represents to the court as follows: I. Identity of Plaintiff This action is being brought by the State of Montana, by and through its Attorney General Mike Greely on behalf of 4 (c) of the Clayton Act 15 USC 15 (c) and the common law. II. Identity of Defendant The Defendant Burlington Northern, Inc. is a corporation, incorporated in the State of Delaware doing business 32 as a rail transportation and resource development company 31 1 within and without the State of Montana in both intrastate 5 6 7 Venue lies in this court pursuant to Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 USC 22 and 28 USC 1391 and 1392. The De fendant can be legally found doing business within the State 8 of Montana and the claims herein set forth arose in the 16 V. Nature of Action This action is brought pursuant to Section 4 and 16 of 17 the Clayton Act 15 USC 15 and 15 USC 26 to redress injuries sustained by Plaintiff and those it represents as a result 18 19 of violation by the Defendant as hereinafter alleged of 20 Section 1, 2 and 3 of the Sherman Act, 15 USC 1, 2, and 3. 2220 21 VI. Various individuals and entities not named Defendants herein at this time participated in the violations hereinafter alleged and performed acts and made statements and writings in furtherance thereof. VII. Class Action Allegations Pursuant to Rule 23 (b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff State seeks to represent a class of legal persons similarly situated. The class consists of all 2 persons and entities within the State of Montana who had any 3 ownership interest in, taxed, were employed by, or did 4 5 6 business of any kind or character with the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad Company. The class includes but is not limited to the State of Montana and all its 7 political subdivisions, school districts, municipalities, 8 9 counties, public hospitals, university units and other governmental units, the former employees of the Chicago, 10 Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad Company, and 11 business entities and private persons doing business with 12 13 the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company. Plaintiff is a member of said class; its claims are 14 typical of the claims of all the class members, and it will 15 16 17 fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members in this action individually is impractical. At a minimum it 18 consists of several hundred governmental entities and several thousand individuals and business entities. 19 20 20 Questions of law and fact common to the members of the 21 class predominate over any questions affecting individual 22 members. The common questions of fact include the existence 23 of the conspiracy as alleged and whether the members of the 24 class were injured by the conspiracy alleged. The questions of law common to the members of the class include the legality 26 of the conspiracy as alleged and the liability of Defendant 27 to class members for injury to their business or property 25 28 29 30 interests. The claims of Plaintiff are identical to the claims of the other members of the class, and the defenses of the De31|| fendant, if any, will be identical with respect to each and 32 every member of the class. 1 2 A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy 3 and will prevent a multiplicity of suits that might otherwise 8 9 10 11 12 13 Facts Regarding Defendant Income and Organization During the year 1978 the Defendant owned property valued at One Billion Five Hundred Thirty-four Million, Six Hundred Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Fourteen Dollars ($1,534,604,214.00) of which Two Hundred Forty Nine Million, Forty Five Thousand, One hundred and Thirty-eight Dollars ($249,045,138.00) was located within the State of Montana. That in that same year the gross amount of its receipts 14 derived from its business transacted within Montana totalled Three Hundred Forty Five Million, Eight Hundred Thirty-nine Thousand, Seven Hundred Fifty-one Dollars ($345,839,751.00) 17 and its gross receipts nationally were Two Billion, Sixtyfive Million, Nine Hundred Sixty-two Thousand, Four Hundred Fifty-eight Dollars ($2,065,962,558.00). The amount of its stated capital at the end of 1978 was Six Hundred Eighty One Million, Eight Hundred Sixty Four Thousand, Six Hundred 15 16 18 20 12 20 22 23 Ninety Nine Dollars ($681,864,699.00). As of February 28, 1979 it had Seventeen Million. Three Hundred Eighty Two 24 Thousand, Five Hundred Thirty Seven (17,382,537) issued That as of April 5, 1979 its Board of Directors con sisted of the following persons: 26 27 28 Royal D. Alworth, Jr. 1605 Alworth Building 4124 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 |