The New York herald., 1871-09-13
CAMDEN AND AMBOY.
The Argument on the Lease Resumed in tho New
Jersey Court Of Chancery-The Proposed
Lease Violation Of the Consti-
tuition and the Laws.

several weeks have elapsed since the question OF
the proposed lease OF the united railroads or New
Jersey by the Pennsylvania Central vas brought
into the New Jersey Court Of Chancery IL win be
remembered that Chancellor Zabriske granted an
Injunction restraining the Pcsllent and Directors
OF the united railroads from executing the lease.
The next step was o hearing OF the arguments On
the question whether the injunction should be dis.
solved. During the hearing OF the arguments Chan.
cellOr Zabrlskie fell sick, and 1t was not TIL yesier
day that the case was resumed. Jerry Black, the
Attorney General OF buchanan; Abe Brewning ex-
Attorney General OF New Jersey, and other lawyers
OF prominence appeared Ior the complain
ants. who are opposed to the lease, while
Senators Frelinghuysen and Stockton and
ex-Cnancell0r Williamson were among The counsel
for the defendants. After brief debate between
counsel Mr. Bradford stated the case for the COM
palnants. lie said that after period OF thirty.
eight years OF usefulness the Camden and Amboy
Company were trembling ar the mercy Of the
Chancellor of New Jersey wno If he wilied 1t, could
cause them to cease to exist, ana they would
practically be among the things that
past and be numbered with forgotten events. Their
epitaph may then be written "rhey have been;'
and ifyou wish TO view their monument look around
ana regard their works-the wealth anG population
OF New Jersey; her unrivaled network OF canals
ana railroads; her comparative exemption from
debt and taxation; the culture happiness
anu general prosperity OF her people; ann the nigh
ed oe cary % PeSae eSs gven oy one S e e
liant anu lamented Stockton, that they would
speedy furnish to every county seat Of New
munications, with their attendant benefits anu
advantages. II, however, the corporate dissolution
OF these companies has not been authorized by the
law Of New Jersey the fiat OF destruction deieud est
S Ns% has not issued S9d the y
] tered rights and or constitutional guarantees
are stili around these corporations; then will
those ume-hOnOred sops OF New Jersey, that ''oid
guard" OF the internal Improvement system OF New
Jersey, who, complanants in tins bill, ask his leader
ship as the representative OF the majesty OF law in
r0utlng the vast forces OF c0rporate Capitalization
which are arranged against them.
They therefore respectfully submit
F6aTnat the aforementioned companies Of New jersey
sometimes termed the United Gompanes Of New ersey
Sc s Any ransne or to make or execute any ase
sad ese @s' 0'
March S Or powe
glr&-Thc lessee named the said lease he Pennsyva
chisc to become lessee in the lease ''
of the Constitution laws tho State OF New jersey
ted sn ue eas @s 10 ss VIA n
conscience and tend to the manifest wrong aud injury OF the
SnIhe compainans' by of such manifest wrong
sss o S' p4a9ea ae The o IN
the bill and under and by virtue OF the Consttu
ton OF the United States the Constitution of
New Jersey and the laws of New jersey entitled the pro-
lection afforded by said writ OF injunction
Counsel then proceeded to cs ablish the PROPOSE
ton, and summarized his arguments as lOllOws:-
Fds-Because the canal, feeder and railroads are public
highways OF the State.
Soco-Bccause 1t Is not competent for the Legislature Of
New JERSEY to authorize SAID united companies deliver
Thi,G-The Pennsylvania Railroad Is not competent to
take hold receive the works.
the lease would be virtual dissolution of
the united companies.
Fyh-Because the united companies the of
their respective stockholders and leasing
mpairing OF the incidental the State
and these corporations.
Satt-Because the constitution of New Jersey requires
compensation being made before taking.
Seccn-Because the taking OF the roads by lease is
E,ghh-Because said act by requiring the Gisg asied
Stockholders to give their stock 10 the companies
attempts 10 delegate said united decide what
constitutes public use sufficient to justify the taking OF
private property
transfers property OF stockholders TO
foreign corpo: alton which they CONTROL
substitutes therefor mere promise of the lessee
fixed rent, without any real security for the same
The rent Ia not sufficient.
The guarantee s not safe reliable.
The proposed lease IL onesdod the
ii the foregoing intent shall accomplished,
the lease shall DO prevented, not the people of
jersey but also the people OF the nted States
OF exceeding gratitude TO this Court the
faithfully and successfully defended the State federal
constitutions respectively against insdious innovations and
daring usurp atoms Of corporate lust Tor power.
The continuation OF this argument will occupy
several days.