, 1880-08-01
TELEGRAPH WAR.


TOPEKA. kas., July 3l--1R the United
States Circuit Court to-day Judge McCrary
rendered bis opinion in the case Of the Vest
ern Union Telegraph Company versus the
St. Joseph & Denver City Railroad, the Amer
ican Union Telegraph Company. and others,
affecting the telegraph line on that railroad
from st. Joseph to Hastings, Neb. This was
one Of the Western Union Telegraph lines
seized by force by the Gould railroads dur
ing the night Ut Feb. 28 last Judge Nc
Crary holds that 1t ts not necessary to de-
termiue whether the railroad charter expired
i'll 1877 or not, or whether the contract with
the Western Union Telegraph Company is
void or not, because in so far as the contract
has been executed the parties are bound
and rights have accrued that court OF
equity will enforce wien the contract was
entered into with moral turpitude. Underit
a line Of telegraph has been built and oper-
ated, and valuable business has been
created, For about nine years it has been
recognized and executed. Under these cir
cunstances it is not the province Ut either
party to declare the contract void, and as
sumo without process, and without a settle
ment, to seize the line and property.
On the question OF the effect OF the fore
that the ratification Of The contract and use
Of the line under it bind the SUCCESSORS the
same Ms the original railroad company.
On the question Ut the exclusive privilege
given the telegraph company Of the CON
structiou anu opera:ine>of q line Of telegraph
along the railroad, he says le has little doubt
that the clause referred to is Void; and, It
any other telegraph company desires to con.
strnct line, the Western Union cannot OBJ
ject, but the clause does not yiliate the entire
contract rs between the parties, much less
does 1t preclude the plaintiff from seeking
the aid of court OF equity to protect the
rights acquired under it and growing out
Of its fxecnf9n ndn in rs pas EGufy may may
be able to show the contract ought to be cam
ceIed BY a decree Of the Court. That Is &
question which can only be determined upon
j final hearing. In a case of this kind,
Ice for series Of years, and where the par.
ties disagree, even then the contract Is not
absolutely void. 4 court Of equity may de-
cree dissolution Of the relations between
them upon full settlement Of their accounts
and payment Of any balances
The Judge concludes as follows: What
wish to emphasize in this case. as well as
other similar cases, Is. that the defendants
own hands. II they have the right to seize
this property by force upon the ground that
they hold the contract void. according to the
saule reason the plaintiff would have the
same right to adiudse the contract valid and
force and violence would take the place Of
courts Of justice. The stronger litigant the
one commanding the largest force and tina
most money, would succeed Such doc
rine. It recognized BY the courts as
proper mode Of adjusting disputes concern
ing property rights, would lead at once to
anarchy II the defendants, after years OF
acquiescence III the contract in question,
after receiving the benefits, and after
property had been built up under! It, to which
yinced that ii was void contract, 1t was
their duty to apply to the courts for relief,
praying q cancellation Of the contract and
full and fair settlement Ut all accounts grow,
they seek some such remedy, and until fair
settlement upon full accounting can ba
had, they will be enjoined from, attempting
to eject the plaintiff or to seize the property.
The demurrer to the bill Is overruled-