The New York herald., 1872-10-29
THAT JERSEY RAILROAD WAR.
Has ANY Railway Company Monopoly "
Jersey Hwhat the National Railway Com
pany Have to Say About Themselye1-
Their Answer to the fen~--'
pailrnea -syivania
~ -. vompany's Claims
Which ID Whichi

---A vOmpouy VlH1m1-
Which 10 Whichi
IL win be remembered that come time ago the
Pennsylvanie Railroad Company made application
before toe Chancellor Of the State OF New Jersey
Cor an injunction restraining the National Railway
Company from building road through the State
70 Philadelphia, contending that the exclusive
right TO run railroads through the State had been
given to the Camden and Amboy Company, and
that as they the Pennsylvania Railroad) had leased
the Camden and Amboy they had come into pos
session by this fact Of all the rights and privileges
che Legislature had granted to the latter company.
To-day, at Trenton the National Railway Company
are to put in their answer to this complaint. In
N they say that there is law of the State Of New
Jersey which makes null and void any contract
made between corporations, certificate of the
making OF which is not filed in the Secretary of
States office within thirty days aftsr the contract
is agreed upon. A certificate OF the lease by the
Pennsylvana Railroad Company OF the Camden
and Amboy was not filed, the defendants claim,
according to this law, and they contend, there
fore, that the Pennsylvania Railroad has stand
ing whatever in the litigation They also contend
that the original charter or the Camden and Am
boy Railroad did not make such provision Of law
nor restrain any owner OF lands from building any
railroad between New York and Philadelphia; that
the said company relied upon the practical diff
Guilty OF building such railroad without the grant
Of the power Of eminent domain and the franchise
Of being corporation, without which SUFFICIENT
capital for any rival enterprise could not pract-
caily be secured. The said charter, they 60 on to
say, 80 far from making any provision OF law to
restrain any person from building railroad be.
sween New York and Philadelphia, or stpulating for
AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT
30 take compensation for railroad accommodation
between New York and Philadelphia, made in
deed by the twenty fourth section thereof another
and distinct provision of much less extent and
operation. And the said company were not en-
4itled to the benefit Of general restraining pro-
vision or exclusive right, but only to the provision
chat was made. Furthermore, they contend that
whatever the franchise granted is, it can be no
greater against stranger than 1t is against the
State. That unless the State grants an exclusive
franchise the grantor does not acquire it, and II
the State grants an exclusive franchise it is ex-
elusive against il as well any stranger; that the
3act that the clause making IL unlawful to construct
railroad which shall be used use. for Transportation
pete IN business was inserted in the supplement
Of March 2, 1882 is conclusive evidence against the
this State and all others; that the contracting
parties did not understand that such terms were
10 be implied from the original charter or any
grant thereby made; that when the clause did
become part OF the charter II excluded, by the
parties, and much more by the rules OF construC-
fi0n OF public grants, the existence Of any implied
exclusive prvilege that If from the said original
charter an exclusive franchise was to be implied,
and 10 was afterwards stipulated by and between
the parties that it was or should be less exclusive,
or that 1t should last for shorter time than the
original charter would have implied and did imply,
the assent to such new express stipulation abro-
gated such implied stipulation; that whether the
said charter OF the Camden and Amboy Company,
itself created by implication, or nom the nature OF
Lie grant, an exclusive ranchise, or the same was
q ycl
Of such franchises was extinguished by surrender
thereof by the said company to take elect on the
Let day OF January, In the year 1869; tnat such
surrender was made by the said company and the
Delaware ana Rartan Canal Company, by an in
strument in writing, under the corporate seals OF
said companies, bearing date the 18th day Of
April in the year 1854 and filed in the ONCE OF the
Inne, 1854 that, by said Instrument, said com
panies recte the passage OF an act by the Legisla
Se Mare e. n e Ssrssy a. anS NJ ie 5 1y S
Ess ssS sRs n ae asSees Ss s aa sss ia
e g anH sSs snffa az
INSISTS tla. thereafter 'si the said a"' charfers h
q the said act last mentioned were there
- y, GO contained tain d.. and that all implication
shat the said franchises were exclusive was de-
EIoyed by Tire express words OF the said amended
alleged the wear last aresa
their acts OF incorporation gave them the said
1usve privileges and 1t also appears that the ex-
ungulshment thereof was an object Of
GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE,
And 4 Is hereby and by said acceptance thereof
!ecty to the contrary OF the agreement alleged to
6e expressed or implied by said original charter,
expressly stipulated by said clause, In the act OF
March 2, 1882, or any other clause in any OF said
acts That the said act OF the year 1854 enacts that
shoa5 eI 5ne Re ist Gsy q January IN the year 1882
Delaware and Raritan Canal and Camden and
Amboy Railroad and transportation Companies,
nm tH
this ssate for the transportation or passengers
md .nerchs ndise between the cities OF New York
and Philadelphia, or to compete in business with
the said roads OF the said Joint companies. That
though the said words are followed by the words
''WathOut thereby IN any wise imparing the rights
" the State to its stock,n &c., the extingusshment
Of the said exclusive right is absolute, and the OBJ
che operation or such extinguishment, but they
were introduced out OF abundant caution, so that
1e new a t tnS excusve @ @ M
agreement under which the State had acquired
And these defendants further apege that the
said the Camden and Amboy Railroad and Trans
gortation Company and the said the Della
pursuant to the provisions Of SAID act OF
March 16, 1854 accept the same as o supplement
ali OF which appears by the said act, as pub.
lHhcd in the session laws OF the year 1854 at
published in the session laws of,the same wear.
And this defendant denies that 1t confederated
with Henry M. Hamilton and Isaac B. culver or
either OF them, or with any one ese to njure the
complanants in the enjoyment OF the supposed
franchise OF
CARRYING PASSENGERS AND FREIGHT
between Philadelphia and New York, or to IN
lawfully or without the authority Of the State for
'such purpose, to construct competing line OF
railroad between said cities, or fraudulently or
otherwise to impair or interfere with the COM
piainant's franchises; and this defendant. further
answering, says that IT has no knowledge OF. and
10 not ana has not, ,. en- party to any
supposed fraud or Misrepresentation BY
which control OF any acts of incorporation
sOf Penn sylvana or New Jersey has been obtained.
nor does il believe that any such control has been
obtained by fraud or Misrepresentation; nor are
these defendants, by the perverson Of the objects