New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1862-08-27

t two weeks compares AS folio VS.:

| n
of the Camden aud Amboy Railroad to exclusive
privilege in carrying through freight and passenger
! from Philadelphia to New-York, we give below the
following opinion Of Chancellor Green of New.
jersey, in case recently before him, which though
against the then pending application of the Camden
and Amboy Company, nevertheless seems to &C
knowledge the Company exclusive privilege:
The Dcaw are and Rrrtan Canal and the Camden and Am
boy Railroad and Transportation Companies, compliments
at the Rartan and De.r Bay Ksirosd Company, the
amden aud Atlantic Railroad Company and others defend
The necessity for immediate decision Of this has
allowed opportunity for the preparation OF an extended
opinion; but the thorough research ana
Of or which Acknowledge my ndt oednes'l have
satisfied the principles wnicn must De recosnzed
and the conclusions "" ch must De aJoPsa ia 'he
OF the motion now Jeore the Court nose lfhciprs emu
uons shall therefore, now state without attenp p.
10 present detail the upon which they founded
/. The Complainant. have b. virtue oi the contract win
the State Ne~ersey the exclusive nanchse o. transport
TWEEN tie Cities OF NewYork and Philadelphia. aud
tedo the protection of Court OF Equity III the enjoy men
Of that franchise
rh, hich the co-nsnts by their bill serA to maiutain
have been impaired elnqushed by CONSENT or the com
psrsuts hight protection ioeied b. acqaieeence IN the
The Incorporation Of the Camden and Atlantic Railroad
Company construct railroad across the state ffo 1ainde
10 m. sea Absecom Inlet and tine Incorporation of
ruct railroad from Rartan Bay TO cape lsnd were no
ylon Oh tie part OF tie State oil thu, contract with the
compananis. ,
the Rsritan Delaware Bay railroad At the necrary and
gtiuse) point OF intersection 90 as to form eo'uuous
line of railway from Camden u The Rai'an
ay and which with the aid Of steamboats, upon the Deli.
ware River and Rsan Bay will form nu'us line and
which by possibility, may BIO used Tor the transportation OF
passenger and merchandise the State between TIE
ctrs II and Philadelphia constitutes no violation
OF 81 @ compliments right. .
There /, Legitimate purpose for which these roads TINS
united may be- used viz The an'po rtaion Of irest and
from points and places within the state Of New.
..-y along the lie OF the respective roads aud between
points the cities OF New-fork ana Philadelphia To-
Thsfr being legitimate purpose for which these roads
nav b. and used and for which JUNCTION De
tween them may be formed the defendants cannot be re-
strained from eectir such Junction merely because It may
be- perverted to Unlawful purpose
The that either OF the said roads or the connecting
link between thom is being constructed without VIA. au
oy either because no survey OF the route mas oe. heI
noted In conformity the route prescribed by its char
Ter CONSTITUTES ground for equitable relief against such
construction, at the instance OF the coupAnaAs u'ss 'He
s such unauthorized ucton and connection OF the
roads NAV afford evidence tending 10 show fraudulent degn
on the Part Directors 10 violate the rights Of the COM
psinapts but it is not sufficient upon motion OF pre-
imnary Injunction overcome the sn.wers o. ia. deond
ant. md her ses and under the oaths Of their
officers no are defendants tor The purpose oil discovery
the view by the Court VI the true consiruc-
o t n. given TO the contract between he State and the
the OF the defend nt Is iul denial Of
S y of Nh. complain ants Till aud tie allow ancs
OF an Injunction before the hnal hearing improper
10 the roads oi the deie -dans By means OF the conte-
plated connection should De ued ioi VOC iuiPe oil tan
YORK and Phadephs compete the business with the
Of .he be The said cities IN viola
,o OF line contract between State and the
fu and adequate protection 70 the compsnAnts tights
% he iveu by Injunction restrain ng such road
H. 10 duties imposed upon the defendant. the prosecu
lion Of their business by theif acts OF
and 10 contract into which they may have entered % may
tr with thiid persons with each other. justify any
violation of rights Of the painans afford protection
against the Consequences Of such violation.
T. Thu is party to this suit her sovereignty
NOT DO nlIeuched ulon her right vi euinen domain
impaired decision in this cause by any unautho
lied or egal hch may be done permitted by the
d. PENDANTS under color OF her authority.
II the roads OF the defendants b. means of the
ti1n that may made between them, either lawfully
awiuy shall be suduertly used in violation evasion Of
the rights OF the State she has power and Is
fully colIpcteLt to guard those tights.
The application for Injunction ust DO denied. and the
ruIo to show cause di,cha ,ed. with costs.