The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-06-30

Jay GOuId's Vindication-The Com
pany's Side Of the Story.
INTERESTING ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.

AFFIDAVIT BY MR.. GOULD.
Mr. Beach read a supplementary afldavit made
by jay Gould 10 the eject 'that ne made no state
ment or representation to the Farmers' Loan and
Trust Company at any Time. nor to either OF it,
officers, to the eect that tho certificates OF stock
issued the foot Of the S. convertible bonds
were issued In lieu Of tho certificates presented to
the Farmers Loan and Trust COMPANY as q basis for
tho registration OF the certificates that 1t was not
necessary 10 obtain such registration that any such
statement should DO made or that the fact repre-.
sented by such statements should In any manner 10
made to appears That the present value OF Erie stock
IN the New York market IS 27H per cent and that ct
no time could 30 900 shares have been placed upon
the market, and that though the shares some time
since went up to $si they remained so only a few
hours ana IN orer to sell that amount Of stock
would OF once depreciate the prce and create In the
market an injurious erect and distrust OF the stock"
OTHER AFFIDAvITs.
Mr.. Morgan read a.ldavtts from Nessrs Hooker
Lane, Lapsley, A. Fl. de Forest, g. z. Quincy and
z. W. vandernoof.
coUSsEr's vINDIcA1IoN OF MR.. GOULD.
Mr.. Beach opened the argument on behalf Of Mr..
Gould. lie said that whom an association In the city
Of New York, not formidable IN any sense as to num-
bers had committed the offence alleged against them
by counsel for the other SIDE and remedy could be
found IN the law for those imputed outrages. was
high time. In his Judgment, that this society
should resort to Its natural protective energies II
the IAN were found mefroctual 20 vlndcate lndi.
yiduals and societies from these wrongs 1t would
be very right to consider whether the action OF the
vigilance committee might not be tho proper mode
Counsel had accused oouid' FISK and ua Lane
with usurping the control OF tho most important
cxhausting It's resource, and peculating Its trea-
sury running It's credit and brbing the Legislature
M s Worlds 5 s wss
less Tor redress ST T. was remarkable that sucl
ernm0Ot
they could exist against the interest and the ruin
Te the ss
tons, with tho charges, broad and plain In their
character and as appeared IN the record. they mad
from those very serious imputat!ons. and the spec
,as ana nssna ana as
nifty nit, reiserating the accusa'ions which, A the
persons most interested and VINO were most injured
retention Of power. Where was the evidence upon
which those charges were madeY There was not
saions; but there were some things In this regard
uldelnable in their nature which were admitted on
Protective Comuittee They admitted that the real
purpose was to take the authority nom tie posses
sion o. thess men win which they were invested BY
lntimated chat Fisk Gould aud Lane hal bribci the
BOARD OF Directors; but there was not o word OF
evidence to sustain that accusation. The share
hoders-the only interested parties In the case
were satisfied with the administration OF these gen.
tlemen and continued them In power end he had
perfect right to assume and contend that the
charges OF these gentlemen were utterly baseiess.
But what had this question to do with the accuse
tons put forward go pertinaciousy by counsel for
plaintiff. lie did not expect that the prc,udces,
aninloslties and denunca.ions so largely induged
in against Mr.. Gould would in any way inIuencoi Inc
action OF the Court Mr.. Gould was not begging for
tins Court win be made on this subject he would
not lmpl0rc ts modification frOm the ncrcful ten
S %as ana
pary TO the snit ana was not IN any way subject to
with justice and the right OF the Cour. II his cticnt
he should be or o. sa
npon what Was that interference? established
up 10000 shares OF stock for the bench: OF
Heath and Raphael. The whole HISTORY OF iudica-
ture afforded no precedent for such motion. He
was denied the right OF trial guaranteed to every
CITIZEN under the fundamental laws under which
they lived, aud II would be stlbvcrsive OF the laws
anu rights OF the Court to grant the motion. Coun-
sci for the plantrhad charged that the proceedings
slider the question idea that he had mIsapped
any funds in the possession OF the Court. The 1000
the Court, was the only property that had ever been
under the control or Mr. Could. Could be said Tor
basis OF new issue OF new stock was an infringe.
mcnt OF property under the control OF the Court I?
lie denied thus. The stock was
NOT DECREASED IN VALUE.
Il was entitled to voting power II had all the priv
ieges and powers OF egltlmatc stock It's value
market might be impaired. but It's legitimate and
real value was not impaired. Holding properly FOR
any legitimate purpose TO w.ch 1t could be applied
was not contempt rs regards property ip The pos.
session OF the Court. II there was any Legality
attached 20 this system OF legislation the Farmers
Loan and Trust Company were bound to register the
MIR: COLEMAN. the REcEIvEx,
and they had notice TO that eject. II His Honor
came to tho conclusion that there had been q
under the control OF the Court what was the par.
tcular offence comntied--what was the wrong
.
registry Of this Stock because 1t could not be denied
that th he shares II the hands q Mr. Coleman were
register them The other side said
Erie Company mus, 60 into the market ana buy
10000 registered shares. How much aid tho alb
was Within the control OF the Court. II they
wanted registry the Erie Company
WAS WILLING TO GiyK IT.
and n Heath and Raphael wore claiming anything
could they claim anything more paramount than
Of stock was nor an easy thing to do, and II 1t were
done i would have remarkable effect upon the
stock in their posse sson What Was to become Of
the receiver stock If theJ did thati Was the Court
Mr.. southmavd-To be endorsed as the certificates
or Mr.. Coleman.
Mr. Beach continued In some brief remarks on this
aspect OF the case, and closed by stating that he
thought he had shown TO the satisfaction OF the
Court that there was no reason why It should grant
the extreme, percmptory remedy sought against Mr..
Gould.
MIR. stoughion followed on the same side observ-
ing that he would discuss the altitude OF the parties
before the Court In this controversy this motion.
That subject was property In the shape OF SHARES or
stock which HIS Honor assumed ana witch
nc should assume to be and have been In possession
Of this Court By its receiver, with power In this
Court al any moment to take them IRON the receiver
into its own haad-ir he might apply such remark
to y Coart-ior tho receiver was bu, the finger OF
the Court and deal with them as the Court sees fit
for the purpose or fnal disposition and adjudication
OF them. He conicnued that the impuiatlon nuug
OUT against Mr.. Gould, that lie was a thIef who mad
stolen this stock, was most unoundcd.
Thieves generally put the money that
they steal into their own pocSets Mr. Gould,
finding that the Erie Company WAS IN want OF
money, WITH It's notes going 10 protest. advanced
the money for those shares which went INTO the pos
session ol the Erie Company lie concluded by ask
ing tho Court TO modify It's order, that the Mas
ter could take evidence rs TO the ownership or GER
tain or The shares In question claimed by persous