Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1875-12-23
chesapeake and Ohio RaiIroad Re.
ceIVership-Argumen Conclu.I.I.

SuMeHI concluded.
he argument OF counsel for aud against the
jurisdiction of the United States Court in the
equity suit against the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railroad was concluded at half past 6 o'clock
last night.
when this report closed yesterday evening
Francis L. Smith, esq, representing $3.50, 600
OF The bonds OF the company, was making an
able aud earnest argument in favor of the iu
risdction Of the court
lie was followed by Judge Mar shall, of Rich
moud, who vehemenlly protested against the
court permitting those now controlling the liti.
gatlon to remove the cause from The iurisd;r-
ton OF the court. He claimed that the aitera.
lion OF some oil the parties FROM plaintiffs to
defendants on the record was Il prcconcciyed
pao 10 impede the administration Of speedy
Justlca and thWart the exercise OF lawful DOW
ers; lie adVcrted to the length OF the road
auo tue TACT that II passes through Two States,
anu suggested the difficulties attending pro.
| ceeulngs OF the same character iu distinct for
uus OF seperate States where conflicts might
| arse that would embarrasS redress If the COM
plalnantS were compelled t. resort to those tri
onnas tor hnal relief. Judge Marshall illus
| traleu the objections to proceedings in the
State courts 10 their differcot phases and was
| lc'l"wea oy counsel 10 favor Of the motion to
dismiss the cause.
Judge Crunp, of Richmond, claimed that
no'ion " DISMISS cause Is addressed 10 the
ulScle'loG or the court, 10 the exercise Of which
tue court IS not TO be governed by simple ca.
price but the discretion must be in conformity
With analagles aud precedents aud wise rules
! OF equity practice. Here the vast majority of
| the parties 10 Interest owning mious ot the
Indebtedness OF the iDsolvcut compaov asked
TO dlSmlSs their cause aud the court ia copsid-
eriug the request would look to the convent
ence VI such u vastly prepondeIa,ing Interest.
lie also urged the consideration that the iuris
dictlou OF the United States Cousr was not
plcnary to do full justice to all the Interest, in
VOWED but was hampered by the restrictions
imposed by the Judiciary act He asked on
oehalf OF the large Interests he represents to
uc permitted to withdraw the suit with the
view TO proper proceedings 10 State court
having competent jurls iiction to meet the tull
requirements of the cause.
| y. Alfred Jones, ESQ.,, of Richmond also
representing large amount ut bouds of the
road, requested on behalf OF his clients permis.
Sion to withdraw the cause from the United
States Court '''N'
Judge Shlpmau, of New York. followed,
aud made clear and torcbIc argument upon
the rights OF the plaintiff TO control the it,pa.
ton aud the discretionary power of the court.
| lie complained that it would be a hardship unon
the plaintiff If, when he discovered he had
made mistake in the preparation of his suit,
aud desired to cutter the common order Of dis.
Continuance 10 the clerks office, and thus dis.
miss IT, If the court should Interfere and com
pei him to proceed 10 cause over which he
believed the court had no Jurisdiction, and
which, IN all probability, the Supreme Court
would reverse upon writ of error for want of
| jurisdiction. La the State court no such oues-
ton could arise. There the jurisdiction was
certainly clear and unque.tioned. He called
attention to the remarks Of counsel ref cling
| upon the CONDUCT OF the trustees, Messrs. Dun
cao, Calhoun, Kitchen, and Ortou, and paid
| eloquent tributes to their high standing, hon
csy and lmpartlality, aud to their worldwide
| iame as men of business capacity and financial
ABILITY Hc did not conceive that counsel
could nave Intended any personal reflection
upon Mr. MacfarIand, but their remarks 10
CRITICISM OF the manner 10 which the suit was
brought were most inopportune. The suit was
Drought originally by party owning mere
pitiauce OF the debt OF the road who lad COM
pel'eu the trustees to send c0uaSel to Virginia
! 10 assume control of the litigation 10 protect
the bonded debt secured by the mortgage trusts
under which they were charged with cnnscrn.
tous duties.
judy" Shipmau analysed the eases cited bv
his legal adVcrsaries, and drew distinctions ba
tween the apparently analogous cases in which
he claimed they fell short of supporting The
positions they were intcuded to sustain.
Nr. EpartS cOuclu led rho ,rp,,,,pt for H.
ulSmissaf OF the prcc ceilings in his clear and
liquid tones, which rivrted the atlention of
Court and hystrnders. but many who had gath
cred TO hear hum We're disappointed in his ar
gument, which was not as full and lucid upou
the contested points as those of somc of the
other counsel. though this may b. accounted
by the Tact that the case had already been
July argued, and his time limited to enable the
Judges to return TO WASHINGTON on the 7
O'Clock train.
hen MIR. Evarts concluded, Chief Justice
Waite announced that it was due to the argu.
mcnt that the curt, in pronounciug its iutlp.
mcut, should file written opinion, and neither
Judge Bond nor himself could prepare it in
time to deliver it before the holidays, there.
fnrc the court would stand adj ,urued until the
third day in January, when the judgment
would be pronounced 10 this place.
Judge waite farther observed that iu the
even, Of the decision being adverse to the
courts Jurisdiction, the court nevertheless
would require proper security to indemnify it's
present receiver, before his dismissal. against
all liability which he may have incurred by
reason OF MS engagements as receiver.
This security, Judge Robertson said, would
be gwen ID the event Of such decision
This notice is thought to foreshadow the de-
clslon OF the court to dismiss the case.
VISIT OF THE EMPEROR OF BRAzIL.-Ip.
formation has been received in Washington
that the Emperor of Brazil will leave that
country probably 10 April, for the United
States. He will travel as private gentleman,
as he did four years ago in Europe, without
any distinction as to his rank, and will not only
ntta ~