The Cairo bulletin. [volume] (Cairo, Ill.) 1872-1878, 1875-07-03
c. Az. 4. 4. RECEIVERS.
Ruled ~ Answer for COntcmpt Of
Court.
TILE PETITION.


why they should not be attached tor con-
tempt for violating an injunction Of the
said court in the case Of the People
against said company, by causing to be
this city. between the intersections of
Nineteenth and Twenty-First streets with
said avenue. q switch and sidctrack to be
used for loading and unloading cars upon
said avenue. and that since the construc-
ton of said switch and sidctrack, to-wit,
upon the DAYS and times aforesaid the
said Stafford and Morrill, have caused to
be switched daily upon said sidctrack,
large numbers of cars to be loaded and
unloaded and allowed cars to be left stand
ing for day, at Il time upon said sidetrack.
and that they continue to use such side.
track for standing cars thereon and load
ing and unloading the same. ''all of which
acts are done from day To day in violation
of and without any regard whatever for
the Injunction heretofore issued by this
Honorable Court
| SERVICE.
IN accordance with the prayers OF the
petition. Judge Baker caused rule TO
issue 10 the said Alfred b. Stafford and
IT, l.. Morrill,. commanding them to be
and appear before the court and show
cause why they should not De attached
for contempt OH account of the miscon-
duet referred to by Patier, which wa,
served by Sheriff Irwin on the day the pc
tition was filed, personally upon Mr.. SAT-
ford, and upon Mr.. Morrill-he being alb
sent-by leaving u copy thereof with Io-
scph Robinson. a clerk OF said Morrill,.
MIR. Stafford ANSWER.
that, before the entry of said rule J. W.
Drexel and Edward Tracy were appoint
ed Receivers of said railroad. in pursu-
ance Of an order on the said 9th inst.
discharging the respondent from said po-
sition. He further answers that he was.
while Receiver, not in anywise connected
with the operation Of said road, and that,
If cars were left standing on said Com
mcrcial avenue, it was not by his author
ity or consent: that he was, while Re
ceiver. acting under decrctal order of
the United States Circuit Court for the
Southern District of Illinois that he was
advised and Instructed by his counsel and
by one OF the judge. of said court that in
legal effect he was mere servant Of the
said court by which hc was appointed
Receiver. and that il was hi. duty to obey
the said court.
As to the construction Of q switch and
sidetrack on Commercial avenue, Mr..
Stafford say that the only action taken by
him in connection therewith wac in etric,
pursuance of an order of said court. or.
! dering him and co-Recciver to lay down
; said switch and said track. provided thai
. III so DONG no ordinance Of the City o.
Cairo should be violated. lie fnrtbc,
says that in all his actings and doin.s n.
Receiver of said road he has been actin
ated by desire to forward the general In
tcrest OF this community, and enhanc,
the benefits Of said railroad to its owners
and the City of Cairo especially. ant
without any commensurate benefit Ia
himself, and that he has done nothing
wllfilly or knowingly in contempt of the
Honorable Court or its order.
LINEGAR OPENS.
The matter came up in the Circuit
Court yesterday morning, ID. Il. Line
gar. Esq, representing.the petitioner, and
Hon. VIM. II. Green, representing Mr..
Stafford. 1t was opened by Mr.. Linegar
who claimed that it did not matter to
the court whether Mr.. Stafford Is Re-
ceiyer now or not, since he is sought to
be attached for acts done by him while
in the management of the road, and
there Is no evidence that the new Re
ceiyer, have taken charge of the road;
that he cannot excuse himself by setting
up that he was ignorant of the acts OF the
agent. of the Receivers that. while it
was hi duty to obey rs Receiver all the
legal orders OF the United States Circuit
Court falling within its jurisdiction, he
might not obey orders of that court in
conflict with former orders of the Alex
ander Circuit Court made in strict accor-
dance with its authority. In this con-
ncction Mr.. Lincgar asserted that an or
der had been obtained for the United
States courts Tor the express purpose of
justifylng themselves in disrcgardng the
injunction OF the State court. lie claim
ed that the United States Courts obtain
their authority to appoint Receivers
from the State laws, as the State Courts
do, and that they cannot righiiully tram
pie upon the jurisdiction Of the State
Courts by authorizing Receivers APP
pointed by such linked States Courts to
disregard Orders OF State court made
before the Receivers we're appointed
JUDGE GREEN RELIES.
The Judge opened BY saying ut is
an i'll wind that blows nobody any
good" and applied the remark by say
ing that while Mr.. l.inesar had for years
abused the Democrats for saying that
consolidation was imminent, he at the
very first opportunity to be frightened
by the shadow of Capitalization, he had
become frightened. The Judge believed
the United States courts were slowly but