New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-01-27
ALL THE COMPANIES HEARD.

nt h,. bad beep INTERRUPTED by the adiournm o.
the Court the day before and cited numerous ana
American authorities 10 favor OF the vi 'e
ststute of 1870 appealed TO by the con' 10 sup
,t ~ THAR intended onsolatlon. He then alluded to
tbe ayerment by Mr. Hatch that the consolidation was
in violation Of agreement under when lie held MS
stock in the American Union Company and pointed out
that there was no specific contract of this
nature set up In the complaint, and that such
q contract. binding the company not to
exercise its legal rights, would certainly have
been reduced to o precise and definite FORM He de-
eared that the proof advanced by Mr. Hatch III support
OF the contract worthless; 1t consisted OF nothing
more than alleged understanding on the part OF Mr..
Hatch. Mr. Swayne declared in reply 10 the assertion
OF Mr. Hatch that the consolidation of the companies
would create monopoly In the telegraph business. that
1t totally without proof The companies proposing
the con oscillation not the only companies In the
United states, and, even If that were 3d. there was
nothing to prevent the organization of companies.
The Court asked 70 act upon mere hypothesis or
possibility.
Mr. swayne replied to Mr.. Hatch's charge OF a con-
epracy for private gain the OF tue directors OF
the companies In eecting the consolidation am not
all certain" he said, that the agreement was not
connected with the fraud OF one Individual but IT surely
was not connected with fraud of any OF those
noting the agreement" Mr. Hatch had declared that
khe stockholders of the Western Union Company
had depressed the stock by offering unusual quantities
for sale me and that the directors had bought 1t
mr.
Hatch o stockholder Of the company he had acteu
in bad faith himself the very transaction he COM
pained Of and that the directors as the natural pro-
tectors Of interests Of the corporation had simply
done their duty buying in the stock to protect the
company. Mr.. swayne said in regard to the
authority of the statute for the intended
consolidation; 81 can find nothing In the
contract which contraveDes either the letter or the
spirit of the statute" he concluded his argument by
saying: have gone thus fully intoa consideration OF
the complaint because choose to consider the plain
TIT this action the representative OF all other pos
sble paintiffs and not because consider that Mr.
Hatch is entitled to any consideration. Mr.. Hatch
havked about the process OF the Court nor did he
attempt in any way to prevent the consolidation OF
which he now complains, or to persuade the
stockholders TO vote against It, He does not attempt to
show that he has honestly changed the opinion on the
subject which he expressed TO Mr. Gould and Others
His sole principle OF action has been, Buy me OUT or
there will be trouble"
EVERETT p. wHEKLERs ARGUMENT.
John Porter asked that account OF an important
engagement Of exJudge Dillon. the order Of argument
be 80 changed AZ permit Mr. Wheeler behalf OF the
Atlantic and Pacific Company, to speak first. Mr.
Wheeler with the consent Of the Court began his nrg
ent the proposition that the interest OF Mr. Hatcn
owning; he did, only 100 shares OF stock was too
slight TO justify the interference of court OF equity
Mr.. Hatch stood alone against the owners of 1900
and creditors of the Anne Union Con-
pany. whose claims amounted TO %. 600 and who
issued pursuant the agreement of consolidation II
the Court, ne n saa on ars o the crpuTaon whose
property amounted to 500 100000. would become
Formidable weapon OF the butts" aud "bears. Judge
Lawrence on the same ground denied motion for in
Junction IN the of Anderson ths ana
the con plsnt In the suit Of Benedict against the West
ern Union ami the Atlantic and Pacific Companies. Mr.
Wheeler asked with what right SIR. Hatch came into
d that 1s o 81 %
time the three ta1rs OF Toisg;s issued an ad
nothing wscl could compare with the calm assurance
rom an EXAMINATION Of thu statute and the aainaged
sde was twin brother TO thF other old maxim tnst the
Snatural state OF mankind IL state OF %sr;
:s91ss: %hx should j. the tslesSsp@
Sss Invalid because IT, price to paid prop
erfy Of tie American Union MOTTO 60 into tie treas
hs stockholders agreement provided FOR tue pay,
and I'd. s s Of e SnsG no
I panes RSr WSesisr replied arsusn
Ss sSs psr "a
Western Union Company; after the III, eOn. .%ods
Be used 70 those Of the hercsn Union for the
Green had shown in affidavit that property of the
%sE g.S nss
increase in its capital stock It sppearedo also by the
Of the company the amount Of SIG had been
spent acquire property and that this was 70
holders we're entitled Mr.. -. Wheeler also t de,
s the oOs ass Ss.s n1s he
sersed the action brought by Mr. Hatch as an appeal 70
the compel litigation. which the law abhorred
THE POSITION OF THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY.
rosyspor r. Lowrsy opened this argument on the part
NJ the Western Union COMPANY, and addressed himself
IN the beginning to the points made by Mr. sewel in his
argument Tuesday Mr. sewel had stated that after
the submission of papers there conflict upon
-Sal
alie cations Of fact made by Mr. Hatch were.
srst. oontraet with the American Union
to act against the Of the stochheder As these
two charges were explicitly denied BY the afndavlls on
The part Of the eOmisnios it Mas BOT saws under n
SsS what T = no oone
own H se Seyon Saa the
, IT. sns S Ss soa that the
hot sse n that the consolidation passed directly to
s a;s1 g sas Ga not necd
further Geographic Connections and becanse mere was
~ osasSs r Iowrey maintained that the
Of consolidation had every element o. IL ssn1
q ali il s Ss SreSdrs were
intsresea IN stock operations which made their du
sy ssao tome. Tis av b Mr 90 aa t6e stock poo
Mr. Lowrsy urged that the agreement was made not oy
M dsctcs by three ibs OF the stockholders ae-
esss q Mr. sswc WAS Eepsed BY
g evsry director Of The American Union COMPANY ~
shs charge We. zoo adsfnits 10 deserve denial Mr.
geweu had claimed that the statute did not authorize
the transfer OF property In Canada, anu
IN reply TO this argument Mr. Lowrey declared
shat rue statute permitted any company TO sell any or
Ill OF fs property, rights aud franchises, and thai es
pecay the enabling portions OF it. to winch the Court
you'd look were ample and complete 10 comforting the
necessary powers upon both the companies making the
efreemeBt. Mr. Lowrey said that no would conn.,
oenfialiy inform the Court that ne bad drawn the
Statute In question. and that Mr.. 6ewelps state
ment OF the motives with which 1t was drawn
fnd the condition OF the business OF teiegraphy
y the Unitod States at the time not correct
The Western Union Company previously TO the passage
q the act q 1870 had by lawful consolidation and pur-