The Hickman courier. [volume] (Hickman, Ky.) 1859-current, 1868-05-02


grounds-that his acts, cannot -
troIled ny the eoarts 49, -
Now upon what is this based ? i here
is no magic in the name of Receiver.
Does the fact that he is appointed by the
Governor put him above til, lawi He
evidently thinks so when he issues his
edict stopping the ears from mnning to
Hickman unless this law suits disms-
eed. But is he out of the resch of the
law Who puts him above the law ?
Can he take the bonds of this company
because he was appointed by the Cover
nor? Like all other men in tits coun-
try be is subject to the law, aud must
answer for wrongs and violations of law.
Mr. Colyar showed from the decisions
in CGhecticut, as we'll as from the de-
cisions of our own Supreme Court, that
the Court had jurisdiction of tie ease
After Mr.. Colyar had concluded, the
Court postponed the further helring OF
the case to Monday and adjourned.
MONDAYS PROCEEDINGS
Mai. Jno A. Lauderdale, attorney for
the city of Hickman, appeared in Court
and made the following remarksin refer
ence to the dismissal of thessut BY the
city of Hickman:
May it please the Court, appear be-
fore your Honor as the representative
and attorney of the city OF Hickman,
invested with no individual discntion,
but under positive and peremptory in
structions to dismiss this action so tar as
the city is concerned.
] am directed also to say that the suit
was authorized by the City Council, of
which / have the honor to be a member,
under a total misrepresentation Of its
nature and practical results. We were
well satisfied with the management Of the
Road and desired no personal warfare
against the Receiver.
We believed then. and do yet, that the
appointment of a Receiver by the Gov
ernor was without authority of lR, and
that the interests Of the Road wAld be
better protected in the hands a Apder
the control OF the company lend
we thought might be aecompis and
she legal question involved sod NH
ont provoking the unfortunate host
hurtiul results which have fol- 4 in
the train OF this suit and which Yonly
be aggravated by its continuanca4
VI ( had no fault 10 tnd no accuations
TO make against Gen Ihnis. nor til We
desire that his connection with th Road
should cease. So far as the interests of
our city were concerned we hadevery
reason to be satisfied with his diicial
conduct. Nor did we understand the
suit to involve a censure upon him Dr his
removal from the Road. We merely
wished h m 70 be tie agent of thecom-
pany, not the Receiver of the State.
Ignorant Of the bitter personal feelings
and preiudices likely to be developed by
this action, and above all of itsfatal
consequences in stopping the Rod for
an Indefinite time, to await ateeious,
protracied aud uncertain litigation, in
voNIDg the total ruin of our city which
is nothing without this Road, We can
we'll say in the light of present facts.
that this suit was ill-advised aud ought
to be dismissed Counsel reprsstntine
the city are in error when they aledge
that threats aud Intimidation have been
used to bring Us to this coBchisiol Tue
stern fact that our city was alIeacy cut
of and our trade destroyed, Aud the
certainty that without the Bonns recent
Up appropriated, the running of The road
mustNstop altogether, the fact that the
conte& promised no possible gdsd to US
as a city, but only inevitable ran, were
reasons sufficiently powerful to inlei us
to this course.
TWAS urged, however, by other plain
tiffs and held as a bJutenl fulaaef over
our heads, that we could expect no hvors
u indulgence from the company n the
event of its success if we Withdrew our
co operation. We are satisfied that in
its present aspects, and inv diving these
results, the whole action is blunder, and
this has been demonstrated to rs by
that stern and powerful logic, the Iaexor-
able logic of facts. which neye& fills
of conviction. Our sole desire - the
matter isethat the Road be run{with-
out cessation by the company if p!aetic-
able, if not by any Que who can, and
that man or set. OF men whoever they
may be, shall have the cordial and hearty
zapport and co-operation of the city OF
Hickman. Gentlemen who have less at
stake and personal ends to subserve in
the prosecution of this suit may assert if
they choose, that we make g compro-
mise Of right and honor" We willsuffer
the imputation sooner than permit our
selves. to be the tools and victims of
priv parties in a contest where III the.
evils aud expenses fall upon rs anu none
of the advantages.
The city of Hickman begs t%with. I
draw from the arena, where victory itself
is death to her, and if she must die pre-
fers it not to be by suicide.
With thanks for the indulgence of the
Court, l now beg permission to file the
of the City Council which l
dismissing this suit.
Resolved, That the suit instituted by
his city in the United States District
Court of Tennessee, before Judge Trigg,
against w. P. Innes, and others, under
III the circumstances, was ill-advised
md ought to be dismissed, and that the
attorneys representing this city be and
hey are hereby instructed forthwith to
dismiss the same.
e. A Otis opened the argument for
State Directory yesterday. He made the
,oint, that the Executive Department of
he government is not amenabls to the
ourte, and that the Receiver was merely