New-York tribune., 1868-05-02
THE GREAT ERIE WAR.

above eases lie presented maps Of the through connec
lions TO Chicago aud the proposed connection with the
Hartford road, demonstrate the prorety Of the Erie
road endcayorng TO have those lines completed IN
neetion with itself With regard to the latter he pointed
out that with this road completed the Erie rnad would
become the direct line from the great coal region TO the
great New-Eneland manufacturing region.
Mr. Eaton said the old theory that OpOFate franchises
were strictly limited by the royal grant creating tlep
form railroad association with more than the common
law rights OF individuals. Corporations longer
restricted to Their State they may and be sued
IN any state They are longer restricted contracts
1t charged that the contract with the Erie and
Hartford Railway was hurriedly made
Counsel read from the opinion Of the counsel Of the
the Boston, Hartford aud Erie Company, being State
company. aud the object ben the increase Of
anty not Objectionable. looking it in fact pay
ment for the partial of the Hartford Road and he
guarantee being merely method of payment Such q
contract was authorized by the laws OF 1889 +. $3.50.
Intended in the building Of the NewJersey road from
Jersey City to Suffrns But beside this several roads
leased by this corporation In this State. The Buf
fao and SewYork City Railroad was hello under such
The act passed by this Legislature does aot purport TO
grant powers, but merely to declare those II pos
seSses.
they sought TO sustain the injunction against the guar
mtted 70 build road in Ohio and against the Company
being allowed to Increase its stock either directly or by
ers, obtained in the way directedby statute.
Mr. Eaton was not here to support Individual directors
any individual director had acted improperly. they
could be brought TO account suit against them.
Their individual misdeeds snond I've allowed to pre-
vent the proper carrying on of this great business of
Judge Sutherland asked Mr. Rapallo whether he IN.
statute that the lsGSwas VOID against stockholders
There would be difference on this latter point us to the
suits The People might bo estopped by their condone
ment.
Mr. Rapalo did not think the case had been yet pre-
sented 10 the Court At any rate not they understood
the facts TO be.
Mr. Eaton proceeded TO argue that the general railroad
act authorized railroads to manage their business as they
pleased alter their lines they pleased tn take more
state Legislature for the faclltatiOn business.
thOrized Directors 10 issue convertible bonds, and the
The Court inquired whether IT necessary to pro-
ceed with this argument whether anything IN the
Junction.
Mr. OConor said that the complaint was that they had
reasonable ground TO anticipate the further issue Of un
authorized stock.
Mr. Rapao-Xn the issue OF this particular stock goes
Mr. Baton-NIr work, the plaintiff, of the dircc-
tors must have known OF the issue OF this stock,
Mr. Eaton wanted to know to wnom ne applied that
term. Was 1t Mr.. Drew, whom they had just consented
should be restored 10 his postiOn TO return to the argu
TINS @ me onded M afoi by BY the
bonds into stock as any, especially where the dividends
Into the dividend fund aud if the dvisOr larger the
amount 10 be divided was also much larger and in
larger proportion This particular case Illustrated The
railroad had pad less than five dividends In ten years.
the road isolated FROM the great system Of
while it had been paying some 81 900 per year
Of interest aud II that thrown into diyi
tho Increased stock 1t ot therefore for nter
.t Of the that the stock should not be in
raised as In e present case by bonds was better for
creased the stock To declare against the power Of
the directors wOud not only involve the value of the
sterlng bonds OF tins Company but OF muCl OF the CON-
stock Of the Hudson and other roads. The theory
that the issue Of convertible bonds confined TO
the difference between the subscribed and nominal
capital OF the Company required the Interpolation the
act limiting the general power to such sums OF money
the nominal captaD No such provision was contained
aud the Court could not insert 1t was said that the 9Th
stock, but TINS was an assumption not warranted by any
which it could be done It was the great Watering sec
ton under which the stockholders were fond OF doubling
et @ S U" n & %hD Ooer We1 10 SoyGa SU
for its needs and their exercise OF that III this way
was one Of the great balances and restrictions on stock
The Court then adjourned the argument to Tuesday
next at 10 a. m. -...
THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUDGE
BARNARD.
Mr. VIM. Belden was recalled yesterday, and,
being examined by Mr. Clark testified mat nc qua "a not not
suit before Judge Gilbert from any one had not informed
holders of bonds who had claimed their conversion aud
Of them the rest were widely distributed witness held
Of them himself issued August Is. 1867; did not think
stock had owned that bond but short time did not
remember from whom he bought it, nor for how much
believed he had demanded the conversion OF that
bOud could not tell as TO whether he knew that the
version; did not think he had sworn potivey that the
conversion of bonds had been refused had not applied
or aptoGzed an Application Ito for the Of his
ISe 0G1 Of The purchase has Of thai bond could hunt up the
aid in his complaint he could reclie the whole com
plant 4 it were wished; had no other object than that
gwen: fnew Drew had large amount OF bonds ht wished
to SELF believed he did theu know lie had sold them; he
av r f sd SceS oSe Of @ objects to secure
tho conversion OF the bonds Drew had sold to Ashley;
what stated about the consultation between Wander
bt others. relative speculation In Erie stock he
had been informed and believed true; had been In
parcuarlze any one place. could tell had informed
him; did desire 10 tell who had Informed him. had no
The Court remarked that the witness had much in
terest in il as the Court had and response TO Mr.
Fields objections Judge Barnard said that he wanted 10
bring IL up hnd whether he Mt unit TO sit
On Tie bench Of the Supreme Court he wanted to st the
matter which had appeared in The North American Re
riep and which had been written by clerk In his Mr.
timOny previously been ruled out 10y the Court
that statement was denied by the Court but Mr. Field
The question Of the name OF the wtnesss informant
was pressed 10y the counsel ana aahte1 & Py ,e Hor @
had been informed the section referred to contained
any one peson who had informed him Of the consulta
tons at the Manhattan Club no one person gave him
and then have Inferred that that one gave him all OF
nformailOn received part OF the information from
thought. had given hlm part OF that lnforina-
ton; that the parties named were using the
cannot any other person who told him that except
Us current conversation; the information that
Work and others about suits IN order
10 embarrass the action OF the Erie Company in extend
ing their communications Westward was communicated
TO him through conversations could not swear when or
where he heard IL could not name any person or
sry persons who told him all OF that nobody TO
him and told him these things he thought ne overheard
part OF Gen Harvcy's conversation; could give the
names OF the persons who stated these facts cOnVersa
tion could not tell who told which could not say who
present during the conversation thought he had
answered the question the best Of his ability had
Informed his counsel that James Fisk had given him the
tfn,,. bod Aua