Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1879-12-13
FROM IsARPER'& FERN.

Bridge Company, we would be Without
any subject for street corner discussion.
Late developments have il that this case
is abont 10 furnish emusic in The air
for some one to dance by, and whether
it will be Mason or the Bridge Compa-
ny who will do the dancing, we are un-
able to say, more especially so when we
reflect upon the uncertainties OF the
law. As hos been heretofore extensive
~ published, Mason got a s"prsfdeas
from the Supreme Court, the effect OF
which was to stop the Bridge Company
from farther pursuing work on the
bridge till the Court could pass upon
certain questions raised by the petition
CT Mason upon which the supersedeas
was allowed; the Bridge Company (act-
inc under advice of their counsel, as we
are intormed) disregarded the mandate
of the Supreme Court and continued 10
work at the bridge, and already nearly
one span has been completed; where
upon Mason went to Wheeling, where
the Supreme Court is now in session,
and entered a motion for n rule against
the Company to show cause why they
should not be punished tor contempt OF
that Count On Saturday last the rule
was awarded, and on Monday morning
Deputy Sheriff Hurst served it on the
officers Of the Company; the Brldge
Company is cited to appear and answer
the rule on Saturday next, 18th instant,
at which time the Court will determine
all the questions Of contempt.
nouce that some OF your brother
editors have been irving to contradict
your editorial Of some TWO weeks since
upon the settlement Of the "llarpers
Ferry property question, and copied an
article which APPEARED in the Baltimore
Sun Oh the same subject. The facts arc,
that YOU were correct in your statement,
for from personal knowledge can state
that as Tar back as October Goth the So
licitor Of the Treasury had arrived at
decision, and at that date commenced
to notify the purchasers Of what sums
of money they were required to pay,
and upon payment of tie same TO the
Secretary OF War, that official was au-
thorzed to make the necessary deed to
the purchaser. Some few caSes were
held Up because of some m!sundrrsland-
ing, but that has all been arranged, and
all the purchasers at the sale III 1859
now have their notifications and can get
their deeds upon paying to the Sccrela.
ry of War the sum required. And l
may further add that all parties here are
highly pleased at the action OF the So
licitor Of the Treasury, who, in the adj
iustmpnt of these matters, has certainly
acted very humau,ly towards the citi-
zeI.s This does not look as though the
Solicitor contemplated sending the mat
ter back to Congress, the Baltimore sun
to the contrary Notwithstanding.
The Sunday Schools of the several
religious denominations in the town are
making active preparations for their
Christmas entertainments, which, doHbt-
less, as heretofore will prove Success.
The record in The case cf J. NJ. Mason
VS.. the l!arprl's Ferry bridge Company
is bcing prepared for the purpose of
getting tie case heall and iiuaIiy dis
posed of at the January term Of the Su-
prcme Court which conycncs at Charles
ton. thereby setting at rest a litigation
which might otherwise engage the at
tention of the Court for wears, and re-
tard the building of the bridge at liar
per'S Ferry Till some trcShet would come
along and wash away the work which