New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-12-14
CREDIT MOBILIER CASE IN COURT.
SUIT OF THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE UNTO


WASHINGTON, Dec. 13-The Supreme Court
was to-day engaged in hearing the Credit Mobier case
OF which the following is the substances NO. 3S-Ihe
United States against the Union Pacific Railroad Com
many; appeal from the Circuit Court for the DISTRICT OF
Connecticut This ia the brought by the United
States under the act of May 1873, directing the Attof
ney-General to suit in equity to be Instituted
in the name Of the against the Union Pacific
Railroad Company
The charge H. as is well known to the great body OF
individual defendants that, as stockholders, directors
and officers Of the Union Pacific Railroad Company nav
ing obtained control Of its franchises and property at an
early period in the history of the corporation, they en-,
abuse the trust cOnhded to the corporation by
dividing among themselves, under cover on %,
| corporate action, its stock, bonds, moneys, ana
| other assets, by OF pretended contracts
| made by them representatives OF the UNION
Pacific Railroad Company with themselves as iudiydu-
as under the and disguise Of various
the chief Of which known as the Credit MODlller
! 10 the bill, holding that the United states pos
| sesses no power to sue for and recover tls
give none 10 its Attorney General. The opinion
OF Mr.. Justice Hunt was published at that time, d1e ne
the United States sufficient to sustain the SUIT there
being primarily over pste3 by Congress
10 the Union Pacific Railroad Company, tue pare snple
interest ssr Tsh so that u little or no current
reimbursement is made by the company the amount que
to the at te 5nt event Sl 'o maW Se
4
estimated that the accumulated debt OF the company to
the at that time will probably be not less
than sos 600 900, and possibly larger sum- IL IS
claimed that there il reason TO aprchend that
unless the relief substantial part OF the Teet com
formulated by OF 1873, aud sought by TINS SUIT IS
granted company win be utterly unable to pay this
enormous debt ut maturity ~, -, l.,
The court jurisdiction to grant the relief ~ Is
urged on the grounds that the transactions were rd
rss and void under the charter 1t being duty OF equity
Jurisdiction 10 protect the public interests against Viola
ons OF charters On the part OF the appelees II Is
maintained that the United States do not stand IN uch
relations TO the Union Pacific Company by virtue OF Its
charter that IL IL not for the act OF 1873, this
anti could be maintained; and that 1t Is not
within the power OF Congress to create ana
confer on the Government the right 10
maintain such suit because IL cannot establish special
remedy or mode Of procedure for the Government re-
nngnat 10 the remedies and modes OF procedure estaD
shed Inv law for all its citizens In like Besides
"a urged the provision Of the law violates the COnsttu
on nv attempting authorize the Attorney-General 10
| confer Jurisdiction upon such tribunal as he may
select It is said that IL Is not in the power
| M Congress In any TO annihilate the COM
mon law principle which forms part OF the law oil
state by which and administrators can sue and
he suea i'm that State district only IN which and by
whose authority they appointed. The Government
ia represented by SocitorGenera s. f. Phillips and
| Messrs j. Habey Ashton aud Aaron f. Perry and the
appellees- by Messrs VIM. NJ Eyarts, Sidney Bartlett
Charles Tracey, WIN. Tracey +. 3. Tamage ana Is. d.
Sillman.