New-York tribune., 1868-05-01
THE GREAT ERIE WAR.

Yesterday was another field day in Erie, and
the combatants made good days work OF IT, although
nobody in particular hurt In the Supreme Court
Chambers motions were made to dissolve the njunctious
iued in the suits Of sche agt The Eric Railway Com
many Blood GOOD art Same, and Tho People agt Same
THESE motions brought up at the time the
contempt proceedings were going ON before Judge Bar
MIR Fullerton On the Vanderbilt SIDE asked for fur
ther pOs,ponement He had understood that the adj
jOurnncut OF the matter before Judge Barnard on
Wednesday, til to-day was on the understanding that
these motions should be postponed
The defendSnts would not admit that there was any
such agreement on understanding, and after nearly an
hours battle over H. by the counsel the Judge decided
The plaintiffs then required the defendants to elect
which OF the three motions they wond proceed wih ana
Mr.. Eaton agreed 10 90 on with the Scc SUIT thCugh
Mr. Rapalo asked for time to prepare papers in this
case. One OF ithe defendants moving papers vas
the complaint in the Broome County suit de had
that suit, and that answer he desired 10 read
tins motion. He had preliminary once
set aside was order show cause why an injunction
should not be granted with temporary injunction in
hearing OF that motion was adjourned till May by the
defendants action in obtaining njunctons IN the
BroOme County suit. Instead Of meeting THIS Order 10
show cause they had brought motion 10 vacate H.
which was a novel way Of proceeding, and contrary 70
sfeuben County injunction from obtaining fnal order
for an injunction and yet by this motion they seek TO DC
MT oC6nor eontendcd that the defendants must elect
either 10 abandon the Steuben County suit or tins motion
The Court could not that the omnibus snt eoneted
with this motion 1t might be tat INC nouon was use t
other He would hear this motion, keeping the point
MI Eaion said tnat the questions invoi ed in the suits
were the gAt0 the Erie Railway Company issue stock
other Taroad and 10 enter into contracts With this
were united certain questions TO the liabilities OF Mr.
Drew Suits had been commenced against the rle Rl-
srtcd ana to STAY further vexatcus litigation the suits
brOghti BroOme and SteuDen Counties were commenced
to settle all the questions between all interested
and the further prosecution OF the suits already com
meIccd stayed They could not however, be reiieVed
from the miuncuons IN that sur WLlch were ng{ i
furious the Company and therefore the order provided
that they should be at liberty TO move to yacate those IN
Counsel called the attcntontO the first injunction in the
Schel suit restraining the Directors from meeting with
Frank Work having also the right to attend sueh
meeting and restraining the increase OF the STOCK OF Tue
issue OF any convertible bonds or their Ineh
there was souelg not cohheeted WIN any tning Jise
restraining TIE Company from contracting with any Other
railroad and then from paying legal ices ana expenses
III Is NOT alo~cu even 10 ue4eilu ltctl. 1
incOngrous clause, from making any contract wkn any
other company couse asked what the defendants had
90 complain OF II might Oe that an attorney could be
found charitable enough to defend the Company without
with other railroad companies was TO tie 1t up from
its daily business. The common business OF seInhg
through tickets always involved contracts between rail
road companies The same thing was to be said oil an
through freshts. They are not to lease the property
OF any other company, anc TINS; carried
Conrscl CHARGED that the Injunction was made
th0ugbflessy and destructiycly But 10 return TO
the injunction against the meeting OF the directors Ihs
suspension OF their ordinary business and IN direct
violation Of Section 22l Of the Code.
The Court-Is the Injunction against Mr. Work sl in
Counsel-Yes Sir Supreme Court justice, grounds
deemed by linn good suspended Mr. Work But We are
not to be prevented from following out our remedy;
The amended complaint bears on its face marks OF great
hGste Mr. Eaton the complaint, discussing its
Daniel Drew is the who throughout is charged with
otenses the main crime Of others being that they had
conspiracies charged speoulaons not
that there was no allegation the complaint itself which
warranted an Injunction, and proceeded to discuss the
of warTantng Injunction.
Counsel conceded, for the purposes Of the argument
that the persons who made these charges against Mr.
Drew believed them true hut they had 10 relevancy TO
tine nns ton B1t he proposed @ 70 IhUT thsi s s pSO
against Mr. Drew He proposed toead the order ne hed
that il could not ignore acts Of tEe Court Mr. Eaton then
read the order vacatng the temporary suspension Oh NJ
Mr. Eaton continued he should not enter into the mo-
tves of parties but the Official acts Of tho Attorney
sOns OF which he had the right to avail himself what
the Attorney General had done In the case OF Drew was
what asked Court to do TO all the Directors,
that for prudential reasons the chosen by the stock
holders and experienced in the business be restored to
the supervision OF the railway. While this Injunction had
restrained the use OF This money or the repair OF the
very repair This all he had intended 10 say On
tins single suit the question to the powers OF the cor
pOTatOn directly In the suit OF The people, and
he had intended TO discuss that question In that su and
had therefore desired TO open the cases together
The Court thought that the important point.
Mr. Eaton argued that the guaranteeing the stock OF
between RAILROADS. Without such extensions 1t dwindled
70 mere local road But the perhaps bold act Of the
Directors had been ratified and approved by the Legsa
Of the State Of NewYork Mr. Eaton read from the
law passed April 81 1863 IN relation 10 the Erie Raway
the section authorizing guarantees Of any connecting
road TO Chicago, and claimed that 1t was an emphatic
approval Of the policy OF the Directors At the time this
bill before the Legislature, certain incpient arrange
ments we're m contemplation ana the Legislature au-
thOzed that to be completed but TO prevent the object
from being defeated they authorized In broad terms any
Mr.. Clafk-Were not pending suits excepted by the
Legislature Mr. Eaton-When this great pubhe inter
pose the policy cry personal interest," and TO
silence that cry forever its promoter inserted In the bin
Hartford Railway, Mr. Eaton proceeded TO show that It
was effort on the part OF the Ere Railway TO secure
the immense traffic between the Eastern and Western
roads. SIR. Eaton here stopped by the Court the
hour OF adjournment having arrived He will resume
his argument this morning.
JUDGE BARNARD YESTERDAY.
On the opening Of the Court at II O'clock Judge Porter
said that Mr. Say Could one OF the directors against
whom hisaetiou wasproceedug, in Court and re-
Guested that under the circumstances, the $4,000 bail
under which he held be reduced to an amount more
IN proportion 70 demanded for the other defendants
Mr. Davies argued that there for the re-
quGsted reductions Mr. Goulds position was not identi
cal with that OF the other directors the testimony showed
that he had deliberately and Intentionally violated the
Injunction and by the transaction had cleared three or
four millions OF dollars. He could reason why the
request should be granted. After some dscnsson the
remarked that it understood that Mr. Gould was
now held under bonds OF the Court OF common feas
which having jurisdiction outside OF New-fOrk
County, the bonds were good for nothing: lie wonld
reserve his decision until a. Later hour IN theI DAY
Mr. Porter remarked that by conference Of the oppOs
ing counsel the points OF evidence might be agreed upon
and that If suspension OF the examination for week
could be had such conference might be held and the
testimony narrowed 10 very small limits, and great
saving OF valuable time thereby accomplished. This
proposition violently opposed by the counsel for the
prosecution who did nor desire TO hold any conference
and were prepared 10 prove al OF thelr allegations Dy
legal testimony open court They claimed that II mad
not been their fault the examination had been unrea-
sonaby prolonged The Court said that the issues ON
trial had only been widened because OF the com
mencement Of other actions ca Porte by interested
parties did think il just 10 Oblge one counsel at
the expense OF another IL the examination were mar
rOwed TO proper which were 70 prove the issue
Of the Injunction service upon the directors lts viola
Lnn ihem aud lh ether nlnnciiOn from GilDert