The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-02-02


court of justice, ex parte afidavits from men put
IN corner, without an opportunity of cross-ex-
bic and uncertain, say IL without intending to
make any tmputation on the good character in any
respect of the gentlemen who have made these am
dayits but do say that on a subject where there
is room for difference of opinion like this II Is
the easiest thing in the world TO get any number of
parte afiidavits for any purpose that you want.
Why here are as respectable men as any in the
common wealth, among them Mr.. Thomson, Presl-
dent of the Pennsylvania Railroad, and Mr.. Potts,
who have sworn that there is connection be-
tween these two roads at Oorry; sworn that lite
rally and straight They would have sworn to no
two minutes; they would have been compelled to
back square down and make their testimony diff
terent entirely from what IL is this minute. They
could not have borne it,
l aver that there is no instance to be found on
record where special Injunction has been grant,
ed mere affidavits or where a fact thus proved,
or attempted to be proved, by the afhdayits, was
not either presumed to be true without them or
where IL was not of peculiar character such,for
instance, as that of proving an incident or some-
thing peculiarly within the kno wledge of the party
who made the affidavit.
1t is done sometimes in cases of this Kind ca ne
ssSSitdte rel, as IL is in other cases.
If there be any one rule in equity proceedings
that is well established, clearly defined, univer-
sally acknowledged, never denied, IL is the one as
serted by Mr. Wharton the other day, and proved
by the authorities which he produced, that in the
first place motion for special injunction is
granted unless the motion be supported by
proof that the act complained of is illegal beyond
possible doubt. In the second place, that IL is
perfectly certain TO be committed, or has been COM
mlted by the defendants; and in the third place, IL
must be shown not by light evidence, not by evil
dence which merely preponderatesi 1t must be
shown by evidence which is utterly incon estible,
that, # committed, it will inflict upon the COM
planning party such an injury as cannot be re-
paired either by an action at law or by any other
way.
Now, if that is not the law of Pennsylvania, then
there is no law in this State, and there is no pro-
lection for any mans rights. Have they brought
themselves within this rule, would like to know
So far from bringing themselves within any such
rule as that to the best of my knowledge and be-
hsf-I speak after rehecIon-I have never yet per-
ceived they attempted or offered even to get within
any such rule, and they have not attempted to
show that thele was any. Have they proved that
that other point OF law which they make in the
case is clear and free from doubtl What is that
other point of lawl 1t is that these two railroads
do not connect at Cory according to the meaning
of the word connection used in the act of 1861.
That is, that when the act of Assembly of that
year declared that one road, one company,
shall have the right to connect lease the road
the other, they being of different gauges, shou Id
apply only to cases in which two roads connect
ed are of the same gauge Now, if that act of As
sembly had contained any words which would
have amounted TO a provlso equivalent to this,
"PTovided that this law shail not apply to the
of two roads connected together which are of diff
terent gauges" then 1t will be all right They
must interpoate these words into the act of As m
bly, before they can say that IL is entitled TO that
construction, before they can assert that the law is
as they say. 1t is not so. hold, so far from their
making out which is doubtful, that the case
is perfectly free from doubt on the other side. To
me it seems as clear the bright light OF the sun
at MONDAY, that they are wholly wrong, and yeti
do hesitate about expressing the strong convictions
feel on that question, because there is another
gentleman who has said exactly TO the contrary,
and he who knows my friend Mr.. Cuyler will have
the utmost respect for his Judgment. II must be
that one the other of us is mis- taken, and admit
the presumption is, that it is as likely to fall against
as against him do not kno that he will admit
with me that it il AS clear sunlight, but know
that he will admit that it is pretty good moon
shine.
Now, how do you make it perfectly clear ques-
tion OF law that admits OF no doubt! ltmust be a
proposition which any impartial man will accept
III
the country, all you have to do is to hold up the
statute and say "Here, between the four corners
OF that law the rule Is compressed upon which we
insist" That is sufficient If it relates to an old
law of the commonwealth it must be language
well known-a well recognized, perfectly adju-
dicated principle. But do they rely upon any thing
OF that KIND! DO they simply offer you an act of
Assembly and then say, "Here is the exact statute
which fixes 1t just as we want to have it.' Not
they. They will not trust il in any such way as
that They intend to make it out by a long chain
OF augmentation, one end of it fixed upon very
remote premises and the other end reaching, as
they think, TO their conclusion. But they would not
trust your Honor with pull upon that chain.
They do not put it into your hands until they have
supplemented it with divers affidavits of gentle
men who are very respectable; but what they are
supposed TO know about law more than the Court
does, l cannot understand
But they picK mp these gentlemen, (and they are
their particular friends too,) and they take their
afidaVits that the mesning OF the word connection
does not apply in that case and that c)ndon; they
wrap up their logical argumentative chain with
these attidavts; but then unfortunately the affda-
Wits all peeled off instantly by counter afidavits
and by Witnesses quite as respectable and twice
as numerous, and that leaves you where you were
before, only in rather a worse CONDITION.
1t is necessary, il your Honor pleases, that you
should look at that act of Assembly and construe
IL uiSceTi6us siS. What does mean on the face
of itl What is the literal meaning OF the words
| that are used therel The word connection means,
aectO to tie, con together Two things tied to-
| gether. These separate things connected may
be very diverse 1t is not at all necessary to sup
| pose that there could be any resemblance between
the things connected; to say that there can be no
connection between two railroads because one is
broader than the other is Just preposterous it
would be TO say they cannot be connected because
one is longer than the other TO say that they
not be connected unless they have the same shape;
or TO say that two gentlemen cannot be connected IN
business partnership unless their eyes of the
same color, and their legs of the same length; or
| that two gentlemen like my friends here, cannot
be connected as colleagues In the same cause un-
less their arms of the length, OF they wear
| the same clothes. Now, in order to make out the
meaning OF the word to be the true one which you
assign TO it, IL becomes absolutely necessary to
sert that two diverse things cannot be connected
| together; you must show that the word has more
| restricted meaning and that they cannot be con-
neced together unless they especially alike in
| some particular feature that is given them both,
otherwise you cannot say that there can be no con-
| nection between TWO railroads, merely because one
| is a broad gauge and the other narrow gauge.
| Now, want to startle Mr., Cuyler little by
asserting that the word connection does not pro-
perly apply TO the junction of two railroads where
| both OF them are OF the same gauge.
| So far from the word implying similarity in the
| physical structure, it implies diversity. Two
roads connected together or Joined together, both
| of them being of the same gauge, being, in every
regard, OF the character which enables cars TO run
| over both, are not connected together-they are
! united; they form one and the same railroad; one
is the continuation of the other, or branch of the
| other; they not two different railroads con-
nected together. The word connection does not
apply to them; and the use of the word, in stead
| OF imply ing that idea which you say belongs to
it, absolutely repels it. If you suppose that the
| Legislature meant the word in the proper sense
m aT N hal Unn On m N