New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-06-30

ton this contract, but immediately by parallel lines
endeayoged 70 reach the line Of the Lake Shore Railroad
entered into fierce and Incorporating oppo-
shOre Railroad Company in violation sna d csse
CATION of this contract Of 1851 The Erie Com
paily had tramped IL under its feet from the very
beginning endeavorlng to flank other roads by reaching
further and further West than any other and that had
had been engaged each endeayoring by its own line to
reach farther and farther West Instead of as formerly
Same STATE. che whole tenor had been changed and rail-
roads had become continental in tkeir ideas, and were
%sRH states sc and dong national bads TIE eoSHe
referred Ia the facts stated In the adavits behalf of
the defendant claiming that the Erie Company had acted
for wears violation Of the spirit and letter Of this con
tract, and had really disregarded it altogether.
This charge was reversing the expanding tendency Of
railroads. IL tolling the commerce between the
East and the West and an injury TO the public great
as 10 overshadow everything else No railroad company
had right TO 10 court Of justice and ask for such
a thing as this He, as a citizen, was reluctant
He had contended against It with al his might hut he
would say most soemnly TO this Court thati the State
Courts through which these lines pass shall from day to
day. on preliminary applications break the gauges Of
these national highways the power thus exercised Ivy
the states viii he Of necessity assumed by the National
Government; and il behooved all men in the adEInstr
ton OF Affairs within the stGtes to see TO 1t, that only
wien lmpefl3us necessity required should TINS hgh
prerogatye be exercised The counsel referred TO the
railroad war of Erie Pennsylvania and other controver
ses saying that these little Interruptions to transit which
the public necessities demanded should be as free as air.
were calculated to greatly excite the public mind
new Erie corporation could possibly take any night under
the contract. He argued that Injunction should be
granted until after full hearing; the Erie Company
had acquiesced for years in the alleged violation OF the
contract they should acq1iesee short time Longer ~
The whole public, East and West were looking with anX-
ME OF the States West and East, interest in
the questions to be passed upon than nave these very
Mr. Reach said il seemed to be conceded that the de-
PENDANTS entitled 10 additional time to answer the
mediate period his Honor solely upon the statement OF
the case the part of the plaintiff should grant an m
junction which would accomplish the object OF the plain
tin and impose the very evils on the community which
the defendants endeaS Oring 10 avoid 10 was first
asked as condition for the postponement that referee
shOuld be appointed:
follows. We cannot take the testimony here:
Mr.. Beaeh-What reason is there that the ordinary
form of presenting the facts by affidavit should not be
followed here
Judge Barnard-Because that would not give opportu-
nifty for croSs-eX examination
Mr. tanning argued that no reference should 10
granted until after the defendants had answered.
Judge Barnard said that the practice in this district
that when complaint presented to the Court con-
that injunction would be granted finally the Court
would grant preliminary Injunction But recently he
granted an order to SHOW cause meantime giving eaen
party opportunity 10 take testimony, but when one
party desired longer adjournment than would be oral
naIiiy granted-Say 10 days the duty OF the Court
TO that the party asking relief was not any 1uflher
injured; therefore the Court would now grant partial
Injunction giving the defendants days for preparation
and appoint referee to take testimony.
interlocutory Injunction ii would be a serious damage
he said to the commerce of the country The nterocu-
tiff asked for except change Of gauge The detendants
asked for time to prepare that they might DC heard
before any injunction granted. He addressed this
to His Honor matter OF right not TO the FAVOR OF me
plaintiff the favor discretion of the Court Why
should His Honor interfere TO grant preliminary or
partial injunction when he had refused II in the original
easel That case had not since been strengthened; on
the contrary il had been shown that the plaintiff had
acquiesced in adopting policy in direct connctto THIS
alleged contract.
Mir. Sherman handed up to the Court a proposed
order to the following effect: -
hearing the injunction asked by the pnh
be adjourned TO special of this Court to be hereafter agree on
condition the defendants the appointment Of referee
plaintiff liberty the hearing Of the motion
sdsvts Of which have been served the attorneys Tor the
Def cua hearing and the def nd
shall upon the plaintiffs attorney all papers 10 he
hearing and additional ady in reply tn
psutf Meanwhile, the Lake Shore
Michigan Southern Company shall be restrained from selling
tickets passage freight point et Of
the esse line Of Pennsylvania SHAH not any way influence ae N
River prejudice
the Erie Company give to either advantage whatsoever
over the other.
Judge Barnard said he would look at the order and
would hear argument this morning in reference to the
settlement OF its details.