New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-01-06
A SPECIMEN ERIE CASE.

We published yesterday brlet synopsis OF
the recent decision of Judge ROsekIans in tie
case of Thompson, Do Forest, and others,
against the Erie Railway Company, and but
for tho great length of the decision we would
gladly have printed the whole or 1t. The
Judgment of the Court touches directly the
rights of preferred stockholders, bnt it has
bearing upon certain abuses in the admins
tration of the law which give it painful in
terest for oil the public. During the last few
years tho Erie Company has been identified
with more varieties of corruption than rail-
way ever meddIed with before; but of all its
offcnses none has been more dangerous to the
community than the arrangement which ii has
effected in the machinery Of the law. What
with buying few judges s;id lawyers out
right, and making iGcessant use of all the
chicanery end 6ubterfuge by which attorneys
have ever learned to embaTrass the course OF
Justice, the managers of this corporation have
brought our courts to such q condition that
an Erie casen nowadays is almost synony-
nous with judicial scandal. Since
the extraordinary development OF the
injunction system by those eminent
jurists, Barnard and CardOzo, in 1859,
almost every effort of the plundered stOckhold-
crs for accounting and relief, has been met"
to quote the language of Judge Rosekrans,
"by orders to stay proceedings and an order
Of Injunction procured by evasion and sub
terfuge This course of proceeding has re-
suited in @ deep and abiding reproach upon
the administration of justice.n "The novel
land monstrous doctrine that railway di-
rectors are the absolute owners OF property
committed to their management in trust for
others, and that preferred stockholders arc
aliens and strangers to the corporation, and
enemies of the Board of Directors. having no
rights which the Board is bound to respect"
has received cOuntenance from the action OF
courts and judicial officers, ard cit is high
" time that those who administer the law
should return to the ancient paths" Judge
Rosekrans evidently has no faith that the
bonch is yet ready to reform. He presumes
that an appeal will be taken from his decision,
and announces that ne shall grant no stay of
proceedings pending the appeal but if q stay
should DO granted by some other court, LIE
can Of course L" take no exceptions 70 such an
Exercise of judicial discretion"
If a judge is bound TO exercise q prudent
reticence in reviewing the conduct of his
brethren on the bench, he is fortunately at
liberty to rebuhe the bar, and Judge Rose
krans has done this with frankness and
dignity for which the profession ought to
thank him. 1t is disgraceful for counsel TO
urge motion which it would disgrace q court
TO grant, and one of these days the ethics of
the law. we trust, will BIO brought so nearly
into conformity with ordinary codes Of moral
i.y that lio in a courtroom viii DO thought
Just as shameful Gs lie anywhere else. Mr..
james Fisk, jr., and Dir. Jay Gould, and Mr..
VIM. N. Tweed, could not go on year after
year divertag the property OF tho railway to
their private uses, and laughing ct courts and
statutes, without the assistance OF astute law
yes. We do not purpose discussing the moral
accountability Of Messrs. Field and Sherman
for tie cCuuptions of the Erie Ring
aud the infamy of certain Of tho
courts. We leave it to the consceDces
of gentlemen Who in private life
are eminently respectable to decide
whether their services to tho Eric Directory
arc compatible with respect for themselves
and their profession, and whether, in the prac-
tees for which Judge Rosekrans addresses to
them % very pointed cenSure, they exceeded
the latitude properly allowed counsel in set
ting forth the position Of their clients The
whole course Of tho defense in the Thompson
suits 0or there were tYO) is sdgmatized
as eVasiyc, Impairment and unruihful.
Ten extensions of twenty days each
in the time Tor answering tho first
complaint were obtained on the aiidavits
Of the attorneys that their numerous and
pressing professional engagements had rem
dered it utterly impossible for them to exam
inc the complaint, although much less time
and care were required Tor such an examina-
ton than for preparing an affidavit to
state that the examination was impOs-
sible. at last, after fraudulent in
junction issued at the prayer OF Gould
and Lane had been vacated, the answer was
put in, and Judge Rosekrans remarks, ct
required less Of professional skill and less
" time TO prepare this answer than
twas required for tho preparation of
4" either of tho aflidavits upon which the
eleven Ltenl extensions OF twenty days each
10 answer were obtained" A further delay
was now secured by means of an illegal order
from Judge Barnard; and at last tho case
was disposed of without trial by the payment |
OF the plaintiffs claim
This claim was for dividends for the year |
1868. A second suit-the one Just decided |
was instituted TO recover dividends for 1862 |
The defendants tactics.were the same. On the
afidavits Of James Fisk, r., and the managing
clerk in the Office Of Field & Shearman, re-
peated extensions OF time were granted, in
order that the important and complicated |
issues" involved in the answer might be
duly considered; frivolous motions to strike |
out insignificant portions of the complaint
secured further delay; and at last an answer
.,,1i aha