Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1876-01-07

Were 70 90, well ana 8OOQ. but al
parties in the State Of Vermont, b'
they ever 30 high and great and pow
erful, to take the law into their owl
hands and say that they will obey thu
mandates of court Of Justice when
ever they are in their favor, and theJ
can make anything by it.and whenevel
1t il convenient, or they discovel
that these orders were made up
on a state Of facts which they
allege TO be erroneous or untrue, tina
they are to be judges Of whether they
shall to be executed or not ? II they
are, then they have assumed the place
OF chancellor, and the court of justice
had better abdicate. The idea that q
judicial sentence or decree is going tt
be disputed and set at defiance, which
is exactly this present case upon the
statement, be it false or true, that the
party who is called upon to obey it had
a reason, which, if he had known II
in time, would have enabled him to pre-
vent the order being made, is to say
that nobody shall obey any judicial
sentence of court OF justice, till
he shall have an opportunity to retry
all the elementary matters embraced
in the decision. | am thankful, as
one citizen of the State of Vermont
that that is not the law; and | think
| am safe in saying that this order
on this matter, if 1t was made
upon the greatest fraud that ever
disgraced the citizens of this State, no
matter if it should turn out now that
there never was any such thing in ex-
istence as the Rutland railroad, must
be obeyed till the party who claims to
be injured by it applies to you in a
summary and lawful way to vacate
and set it aside for the fraud that has
been committed. 1t does not belong
to the Central railroad company, it
does not belong to Governor Smith, it
does not belong to Mr.. Clark, or Mr..
Underwood, or Judge Poland, to any
device of counsel, or any motive of
party to undertake TO set this up as 4
defense, to say they will obey or DISC
hey the mandate of a court of guilty,
and excuse themselves for disobeying
by saying that that mandate was err
roneOus, that if the real facts had been
known 1t would not have been made
Mr.. UnderwOod.-lt only applies to
the Rutland railroad resembling it.
Mr. Edmunds.-The Rutland rail-
road, If it please your Honor, does
not arrogate to itself what the Central
does, to rescind or disobey the
orders OF this court 1t has suf-
flcient respect for the court, as
well as for the law to do what
ever the court orders, till, in the
regular way II can get the court, If
there has been an erroneous order, to
vacate IL and set it aside. Whatever
may be said OF the contract between
parties, If your Honor pleases, when
one party Is cheated in respect of anv
contract that has been made, 1t is not
for him to break the contract and say
there were matters not brought into
that decree through the fraud ofthe 9TH
er party which, If they had been. would
have reduced the sum named in the
decree. That would be a singular plea
to be put in in matter OF Judgment,
wouldn't 1t ? Yet that IS put in here
The order is just as valid as any de-
cree In the whole cause. Whether it
could have been resisted when the sub
lect was properly brought before your
Honor by the parties in interest, as be
ing an order that should not be made,
and that these trustees should not be
permitted TO make such contract,
and should not be ordered to carry it
out, Or perform it upon their part, i
quite different question But there
is nothing less secure about this decree
Of yours than there is about any de-
cree your Honor ever rendered in
your life Il is not a decree TO be dis
regarded and made light Of by either
Of the parties in respect Of its eXecu-
ton, but il j. decree which stands
ilnal and conclusive - the truth and
law, till by proper proceeding for that
purpose it is set aside.
Now, suppose these gentlemen had
brought a petition and an appeal to
set aside this decree and this contract,
when they had discovered this alleged
fraud. They undoubtedly would have
had the right 10 do tiff the fraud should
)e proven. and turn out TO be mate
-ial to the transaction which they
wished to set aside And then, sup
oose you did so rule, would they be
Untitled to hold on to the property |
md redress themselves should |
hink not. The Judgment OF the court |
: 70 stand or not 10 stand. There is |
lot any middle ground about it, The |
aw does not authorize the court 10 /
lake any fresh contract; the law /
ioes not authorize the court 10 say /
hat one portion OF the contract shall /
De- carried out and the other part shall I
lot. II is ii contract between two /
ides, both parties 10 do something or /
.othing at all Suppose You vacate
hat order, the contract Is not in force
lpon the face OF IL because il is not to
ecome an active contract till YOUR
honor approves Of IL. The minute the
rider ceases by the action OF the court,
hese gentlemen have possession OF
heir property Is your Honor to take
ny allegation Of theirs, that they are
D o. entitled To, and can occupy what
they do not own, on the
round that they have q counter claim
)r a tort against the party who does
wn il l admit, your Honor, and /
m glad the Law j. 50, that the parties
aving such 4 counter claim. are en-
Tied 10 ask your Honor, that the par
: against whom they may have the
lain, give ample security TO indemui-
: them But these defendants have
o right TO keep Us out Of the possess
IN OF what Is confeSsedly our own
roperty, in order that they may have
ne to assert a claim 10 IT, This is
le principle upon which we stand.
ld the principle upon which Judge
GLAND in this very opinion which mas
zen referred to, stood and considered
, be the law. That il appearing
pom the state Of facts that the Yer
ont and Canada Railroad had made
lease upon these conditions and that
iese parties had not paid the rent and
serted that they had counter claim
r a much larger sum than the unpaid ;
nj, would not Justify him IN holding
e road away from the Vermont and