The New York herald., 1872-12-13
THE JERSEY RAILROAD WAR.
courtland Parksr's Argument-History Of the
Jersey Railroads-What Constitutes Legal
Competition-Camden and Amboy Dead
Can the Court Resuscitate TT

Competition-Camden and Amboy Dead
Can the Court Resuscitate 1T
Mr.. CORTLAND Parker delivered the closing argu-
ment on behalf OF the defendants in the great in
junction case now before the Chancelor's Court at
Trenton. yesterday. He commenced by saying
that matters OF most vital Importance were in
vOlved IN this case, for the simple reason that 1t
involves renewal OF gigantic claims made by
gigantic corporation. and also the rights Of others,
who claimed to be chartered and authorized by
the Legislature to build railroads. But the
question OF law in the case was
very simple. The complanants allegc TO
be In possession OF certain franchises.
and they also allege that the defendants BY the
building OF this national road would create injuri-
GUS complication. These points define the case.
The right to franchise is the result OF contract.
The charter is contract between the State and the
corporation. BY that we must understand the
franchise Counsel alluded to the geographical
position of the State Of New Jersey and said it was
appreciated ever since the earliest periods Of his
tory, and that efforts were made to take advan-
tage of this geographical position by lines
OF communication between New York and
Philadelphia the two great cities OF the Continent,
through which the products Of the South must
come. He here proceeded to give statement Of
State, and also history OF their organization: In
the early stage OF the railroad history Of New
Jersey but four routes existed, besides one by
South AmbOy across to BOrdentOWn afterwards by
boat to Philadelphia This latter was the territory
from which franchise was to spring in this
new contract. railroad north Of the Raritan
would benefit the people Of New Jersey. In 1915
one master mind, citizen OF New Jersey looked
John Stevens procured from the Legislature an act
to construct q railroad from the Delaware near
Trenton. to the Raritan near New Brunswick.
a
New Jersey. In the year 1880 the first charter was
granted. Before the absolute going into effect OF
sary s to " examine the charter Of that company
State Of New Jersey to run . locomotive on its
line OF railroad The word steam or locomotive Is
not contained or mentioned in that charter. 1t
also likes tolls instead Of arranging the rates Of
transportation. In all respects that road was
nothing but the creation OF highway, such
Counsel referred to the Delaware and Rartan
Canal Company :, This project always had the peo;;
e s Se ana o
an act was passed accepting its surrender.
On the 4th OF February, $780, two rival sets OF pro-
headed by son OF John Stevens, asking railroad
from New York to Philadelphia, through the will
derness of the state; the other set headed by the
most prominent lawyers, statesmen and pOiti-
Clans asking for canal. The Legislature came to
an understanding on that same day and passed
both these charters. Now, having seen to some
extent what the Legislatures intended, we come
to the charters to see the exact meaning. What
were the franchises but pure and simple, stripped
nection Mr.. Parkes made an elaborate argument
by going on to show that the Legislatures OF New
struction of railroads throughout the State. He
referred to the allegations in the BILL which states
by the provisions Of the act Of 1881 He submitted
that this was an erroneous view. He examined
this act and insisted that these exclusive priv
point for some time he COntended that the
Legislature OF New Jersey when they granted to
the defendants this charter never meant that they
would create injurious competition by the con-
structiOn OF such road but they meant 1t lor the
accommodation Of the people OF the northern
1rm this. These two companies already referred
to were then rivals, that is the railroad company,
headed by Stevens, and the canal company. The
promoters were strong before the Legislature for
their own protection The Delaware and Raritan
and hourly opposed the idea Of q railroad
as q chimera. He showed that the grant
was in the power Of the canal company to build
railroad, although it was not in the power OF the
railroad company TO build canal
for the Delaware and Raritan Canal Company to
build railroad within tive miles OF the Delaware
that that the Delaware t'' and Raritan Canal Company
We're never supposed TO have the right to
build railroad as they have to build canal.
The real test question in this case was, What
rs legal competition. That was the great question
for consideration. II the Legislature passed an
York to Philadelphia would it be regarded as a
breach OF the charter given to the Camden and
Amboy Railroad This ne contended would ,, De
Illegal and tnat the erection OF such road would
not be injurious competition. The Camden and Am
boy Company ask the protection to that degree.
He cOntended further that the Commodore sug-
gested in that address the idea that railroad
might be constructed in connection with the canal.
He insisted tnat the State admitted the right OF
the Delaware and Raritan Canal Company to build
q railroad He submitted another point in the fol-
WOrdS.-t.Ihat n "
| the franchises OF their charter had any reason
whatever to complain of the road to be completed
ing this point he said, that on the 18th of May 1881,
two companies were united and became to-
ge.ner strong power Sis wnicn o mas oeen @ so long
contended, dead. He referred to Kent Taney,
Sergeant and Frenghuysen, and also adverted to
said that In the year 1885 that corporation had
right to construct their road between these two
deiphia or New YORK. This road would have been
built but for the fact that the parties combined in
the Delaware and Raritan Canal and Camden and
Trenton and New Brunswick Corporation and were
about constructing collateral road from Borden
town to Trenton, and then from Trenton to New
Brunswick.
Mr.. Parker SAID his point in all this review was
to insist that by the language not only of the
act OF the Legislature, but by a whole history OF
the past the promoters OF that enterprise cannot
conceal the fact that they possessed the charter to
York. We can now stand on the grave OF that
monopoly and say 1t is dead, and that 1t can no lon
ger cope with the enterprises OF the people The
claim Is but ghost OF the past and should be
seen only as spectre and not as q reality.
After exhausting this subject Mr.. Parker asked
the Court could 1t cause the dry bones Of the dead
monopoly to stand again on their feet2 Mr..
Parker made most eloquent appeal in conclusion
and was loudly appauded by the large audience
who filed the court room.
Mr.. Cuyler will sum up to-day on the part OF the
compainants, when there will be q termination to
these proracted proceedings for the present term.
A SUSPICIOUS CASE.