New-York tribune., 1875-11-30
THE COURTS.
THE PANAMA RAILROAD INJUNCTION.
ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE coMPANYs POWER TO
RsrARIISu STEAMSHIP LINES.

ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE CONPANYS POWER TO
ESTABLISH STEAMSHIP LINES.
The motion in the suit of Aaron Freeman
against the Railroad Company for an injunction
restraining the defendant from establishing steamship
lines was argued yesterday before Judge Donohue. in
Supreme Court Chambers. Mr. Macfariand for the do
fendants presented adavts by Tren0r ". Park Presi
dent the Company and Others admitting negotiations
for the establishment Of line OF steamers and ayerng
that the Panama Railroad Company had always supposed
ii had the power under the charter, to run steam
shp lines; that It had for years . half interest
in u freight line and had owned several steamers.
which it had only parted with when the Pacific Mall
Company got the right TO run the Atlantic side. Tho
Company had aided that Pacific Mail Company to this
privilege IL not then convenient to establish
line OF its Now virtual combination OF inc
Union Pacific Railroad Company and Pacific Mail threat
eued to leave the Panama Company business except
lowclsss freight and its only remedy to establish
lines
Mr. Macfariand, arguing on the papers, claimed that
the proposed within the charter OF the Com
pany. It created corporation for the purpose OF
building road and Of purchasing and navigating such
steam sailing vessels may be proper ana convenient
TO he used in connection with the said road and for such
nurposes all the necessary aud incidental power hereby
granted to said corporation This clause was a. broad "A
could be made 10 would have been madness 10 build
road in Central America an EFFORT when had Dech Irt-
lessly made before, Without power 10 manu-
with civilization. 90
Ex-Judge Fullerton, In reply read the aldaylt OF j.
Center VeePresident and Director OF the road nom
1850 20 1850 who stated that till the road was com
peted in S55 it had occasion for lightcrage The
managers found IL impossible in early days to charter
vessel, 10 bring the materials for construction and 30
some of the officers bought some brigs ana formed "bry
line" IN which tho company took a half intere.t ami
after the completion OF the road owing 70 the difficulty
OF sending frcights by the passengercrowded steamers,
II was continued for time, but always unGer Tue man
agement of individuals and not the Company Inc gue.-
tion Of the right 10 steamers was never raised
MIR Fullerton argued at length that the charter OF he
Company was intended 10 establish not a new chahnel
of trade bnt an improvement In a course or trade
ALREADY cxistng The shalOgncss and hlgh t1es oi ING
Bay of Panama compel vessels 10 anchor far out ana
reGure ligcage 10 meet this difficulty there was IN
cIurd I'm their charter right TO own vessels proper
and convenient to be used in connection WIN said
road" The words had natural signincat0n,
if limited To lighterage in that bay hut they "efs
very meager words 20 giye power, as was now
claimed to establish steamship lines 10 all paris ~
the world II that the intent OF me Legisianret u
was a case OF prOigate legislation without n parallel
7 = tide OF the corporation pointed To no sucli power
Grants TO corporations strictly construed agaps
them They are limited the letter and spirit oI ther
charters and in this 10 sustain the delenIants
would be 10 reverse these saluaty naXims Juds9
Donohue reserved his decision. Fullerton & hnoS APP
pearcd for plaintiffs Shpman, Barlow, Laocque Aidc-
ftrltul for defendants.