The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-08
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Arguments Of Counsei IN tue case oil aigaI
Gas Companies Of hfemphis, Tenn.--J'raps-
actions in Cnfederato Treasury Notes In
Alabama In 1864.
WASHINGTON, Oct. I, 1869.
Associate Justice Field appeared to-day In the
Supreme Court OF the United States All tho judges
are now present.
The Mayor and Aldermen, of the Citg or Memphis
and The Memphis fGayosoJ Gas Co7apony Appel
Lants, Us. Thomas Dedf-The defendant in error
files his bill In the court below a citizen OF New
York and large stakeholder in the Gaslight Com
pany OF Memphis corporation chartered under
the laws OF Tennessee. and which by the act OF
incorporation fMarch 1s4e) given the privilege
OF manufacturing gas and supplying 1t for fifty
years. 1t appears that subsequently (1S52 tho city
authorities conferred this company the exclusive
right for twenty years Of lighting the city and OF
laying down pipes and conductors In the streets and
alleys OF the city. In May, 1886. the Legislature OF
the State incorporated the Memphis Gayoso Gas
Company, and the corporate authorities OF the city
now propose. by ordinance, to submit to the voters
OF the city the question OF subscribing s25o,ooo to
the stock Of the new company; and the bill CON-
planned that the influence OF the city authorities
would probably induce the citizens sanction the
proposed subscription. The BILL after alleging that
the original company declined to resort to the neces
sary litigation 20 protect It's corporators-of which
the complainant was a principal one-complalned
that the new corporation was organized by VOID
act the being W.aous powep 70 repea.
original company; and that the act OF the city
authorities In passing the ordinance sub.
stock OF the new company. to the cIti.
zens, was a gross violation OF their contract
with the old company the prayer was that tho
city authorities be restrained from holding the pro-
posed election and from subscribing TO the stock,
aud that the new company be restrained from lay.
ing pipes IN the city and from manufacturing gas
and selling II 20 the Inhabitants. The Judgement
below, In the Circuit Cont for the district OF West
w "a n n q -
tio1 was granted to the full extent asked. This
appeal was thereupon taken. and upon 1t Is first
raised question OF jurisdiction. Ii is objected that
although The complainant Is nonresident stock
holder OF Tennessee, yet his company IL resident
corporation OF the state, and therefore, tile federal
jurisdiction fails The refusal OF tue company TO
ltigato Is urged Ia reply, On the merits, tho
only question OF Importance Is that OF ex-
On the part OF the defendant In error,
representing the original charter, II IL commended
that provision therein, making II incumbent on
the corporation 10 establish gas mandatory sum-
cent 10 supply the CITY and It's inhabitants with the
siys igRtthat OF exclusively Supplying for the term
or its charter the city ana Its nnabitants else the
franchise would be OF no benefit, but on the con-
trary, performance OF It's obligations would become
hardship. The argument OF the plaintiff In error
Is that the claim OF an exclusive grant IN the original
charter wholly unfounded, because 1t contains no
express terms OF exclusive right. The correct doc
trlne 10 that all rights which are asserted against
inference or presumption, and II the charter Is
silent about power 1t does not exist Charters are
to be construed most avoraby 10 the state, and n
grants by the public nothing passes by imp-
cation. The courts or England and OF the
United States, both State and federal 1t
is submitted have asserted this pripclpe.
The cause was argued by MIR. f. r. stanton for
appellants and continued by Messrs. McRae and
Hume, aud was concluded by Mr.. stanton to-day.
The case OF bloomington vs. Smith and Hartley,
involving transactions IN Confederate treasury notes
at the South during the war, was then argued by
Mr.. Philips for the appellant, the appeees not APP
pearng. The action was upon note for $40, 900
made at Montgomery, Ala. In November, 1864 by
the appeees, and payable one day after date The
defence that at the date OF the note there was
no lawful currency I'm circulation In Alabama; that
the medium OF exchange was at the time the treasury
notes OF the Confederate States and that the
contract was made with the understanding and
agreement that IL should be discharged in sucn
Confederate notes and not In money lawful cur
rent by the United states. The note was made by
dts terms lien or mortgage on certain real estate
for which 1t was given In payment, and the action
sought TO hold the property for $4,000, lawful
money. The court admitted certain parol evidence
In consideration OF which IL came 10 the conclusion
that the dollars" expressed In the note meant Con.
Tolerate treasury notes and found for the defendant
holding the contract wholly Illegal and void because
II was payable In Confederate treasury notes. Tne
trlct Court for the Middle district OF Ala
bama, from which an appeal was taken TO
this court, the appellant contendmg that
as the contract was not entered into Tor
The purpose OF giving currency TO these notes and
thus indirectly attempting to aid the rebellion IL 10
currency 10 the notes. II there was illegal design
the contract was neither immoral nor illegal There
was no other currency by which the daily transact
tions OF business could be carried on, and Il mad
been imposed on the country by irresistible force.
Tue ior necessity using this 0uzreaW Was