New-York tribune., 1874-10-14
A EOHEL RAILROAD CONTROVERSY.

CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF THE UNION NArioNAlr
AND DELAWARE AND BOUND BROOK COMPANIES
IN NEw-JERsEY.
A serious railroad controversy has arisen In
NewJersey About six years ago, In order 10 OBTAIN
competing line from NewYOik to Philadelphia, the ola
National Railroad Company was organized under the
stanhope charter The road to be built from
point near Yardleyville, on the Delaware River 10
connect with the New.Jersey Central at Bound Brook
a distance Of 27 miles. Much of the line was
nearly graded. It's completion was prevented BY
an Injunction granted by Vice-Chancellor Dodd.
The General Railroad law of New-Jersey was passed
April 81, 1873. 1t provides for the organization OF
railroad company by the filing Of articles OF association
and Of surveys. Tie charter is forfeited however,
miles, work be begun within months, and the law
allows two years and q half for the complexion OF inc
road company called the New-Yor and Philadelpha
Railroad Company was organized at once, put the
proiect was abandoned April H. On this day the
National Railroad Company filed articles OF association
No work done on either OF these roads ana c9ne
onently their rights companies ceased Oct H. Then
the Union Railroad Company filed its organization GOV
erng the whole previously sought De occupied
between the points named. Sufficient work was dome
ground being broken in two or three paces.to secure
the permanence OF their charter Some time IN March
April last new company sprang up wncn gnored
the existence OF all previous comptnles ana
IL called the Delaware and Bound BROOK Haiifoao
Meanwhile the contractors Of the old National Com.
pany had received compensation for the money ana
which they mad extended MIst OF 'Ge
who had nearly graded five miles Of the old road near
Pennington, filed petition in bankruptcy against the
original National Company, and now holds possession OF
certain EN- Dankments and excavations on the ne Inc
contractors OF tine Delaware and Bound Brook Company
have attempted TO seize the work OF Cummings ana
others and resisted by armed force ana he
tools aud derrcks have been removed on pain "i De
structon Great excitement prevails in the nelghD0r-
hood OF the road Tie farmers and others along the
line and esew while chiefly desirous to secure
road are un Hing that Cummings should be deirauueG
of the fruits OF honest labor Cummings claim is Daseu
upOn this clause his cOntrac,: when WORK Is re-
simed, they (the conraclO Ors) may claim to continue
| upder this contract II they elect SO TO do, :.
| without damage for such delay" Tie WORK
| OF the Delaware and Bound Brook Company,
| he claims, simply q renewal OF the w0rk
| of the old National Company, the property or whicn
is la wfuy held by the creditors On the other mana
Is claimed that Cummings Is in false position as the
rights and obligations OF the Old National Company ex
plred with the disOandlng Of the company and the
decree Chancellor and therefore he has no claim
on any company 1t is admitted that the contrac
tors were abused aud derauded by the old company
but IL does not follow that their wrongs are to be re-
dressed by the company. An offer OF compromise
at 80 per has been made and refused ana the case
is 10 be carried into the courts The General Railroad
law is involved only in the mbroco Of the Union ana
| the Delaware and Bound Brook Companies While tue
former did sufficient work within SIX months TO Ietaiu
their cnarter it s claimed by the latter that TINS Is
simple subterfuge that their work was inslgnncant
and furnished substantial foundation Tor d Just
claim