New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-02-27
ARGUING TIE TELEGRAPH SUIT.

A CONTRACT AS A MARK OF GOOD WILL
r,v EFFORTS OF THE DIRECT UNITED STATES CABLE
COMPANY TO PREVENT THE CONSOLIDATION OF
THE LAND LINRs-QUEsTIoNs by JUDGE DLATCli-
FORD. Nj.
Arqument in the suit brought by the Direct
United States Cable Company for an injunction against
tho completion Of tho consolidation OF the lh'ee iauu
telegraph companies continued yesterday IN 'ne
limited States Circuit Court before Judge blhcuioi
Both parties to the suit were represented " '"' -
counsel as on Thursday A.,
AZ, u,hoo,nr NJ counsel for the defendants. on the
r q, the Court announced that since the last hear
ING there had been little crosSnring OF aIhiaVts' anu
no that they should be read before continuing
the argument. -, ,,
Judge Batclford replied that they might rs wen pour
water nm ducks back 80 far any effect the aihdavie
could have on his mind because at that time ne ava not
understand the application OF the afhdAvhS' lie sus
esed that they should be read in the progress OF the
argument. ,,,,.
Mr. Delaaed asked that the names OF inc socKhoucrS
az the Western Union Telegraph Company Do supphou
He said that Of the exhibits OF the deondahts was
tho aOreement of consolidation which, u Ia aileReu, N
oonsented 70 by the owners OF 255,670 shares' Inc
names however. OF the owners arc not gwen ann te
document Ia consequently incomplete the conpa IN
eot contepded that Jay Gould owned or controied INC
nt ~ tho st0ck Of the company, and IL hoped 10
ascerain the exact fact by having tue names ~ nv
Judee Batcord said that II II became material m We
c"eress of the case 20 call the dcfcndaps 10
suc6 DISCLOSURE would order II to be done ~ ,c
| meantime however, he did not see 'hH' ""' N'''
sary. 1890 49,, .o,,,ood his ARGUMENT, which he
began Thursday last lie argued t , tut1 case the
mItuaty In the agreement ana snd thA ~ III 20
Court granted the injunction asked tmsre over ~ s b
prevent the cable company from han ,,c oni oc1c
ness 10 any other company than the Athulc a 60
1se na1 Contract IL Of Art Importance In this case
and have been examining these papers " w ap ~
at some Wv TnTy , Ste S9eso as an Inquiry
because have formed any opinion on thu "a
esso"es witch APPLIES 10 company what IA there
prevent either party from taknH rued And when
Vii aid to II the arrang cement with the Western Union
COMPANY Whereby II Is ao%ea 10 Ts o Is worth
more than the paper which u II wI1ttehi ~ see'ns
TO me that neither party was deceived ou' 'n@' '"'
General swayne-Thls is the first time in my expert
ence that such n contract has ever hcen brought hto
cnnpt II amounts to Just Il declaration OF good WILL ana
notiling more. have drawn many similar agreement
nHer th"Sht that they we're than expressions OF
mutual good WILL The fact Is, the gravamen OF is e,sS
aiates 10 fourth contract between the American
Union Telegraph COMPANY and he American IelegIapn
Cable COMPANY they are nS o and
| Gable Company that company should De made party
this S suit con Te to 's sn the de
delivery OF messages by cane 1 TIC Son fo,rS
has ben enreated to give tho of Congress OF July
"a 1866 a construction which has already seemed
nose 10 enlarge further yOnr onOs view than 10 say
that good many cases have been tried under IRA
III
than tbat nut upon by your Honor Tae ultimate thel
are insisting IA that whenever line 0 telegraph ha
been built under that act, II cannon DC SOLO, hough ~
3 may I've losing money 10y u am prihons stah
| ready TO buy IL. They claim II must lie leit 10 TOT
fail To find In statute any word which VIII proven
= the property being sold.
. Alter recess there short consultation Detwee
counsel and Court relative the advsahty Of posi-
ponlng further argument IN the case until AL the paper
II IN the French had been fled and put III shape
Judge Batchtord Thought that more real progress wOn
thus be made, as It was apparent to him that when y,
would have 10 be gone over Upon iufther consdtrao
II was found that. unless the argument was complete
shortly, IL decision might not ne reached Tor month";
, | owing 10 other engagements or Judge Bhtchf0fd
was therefore decided that the argument should pr
| coed.
dressed the Court the principles OF law which, III ID
e opinion should govern the case lie commended that III
contract which the base OF the plalnns clam WI
n mutual exclusive and nhibtory In It's provisions
reviewed ut length the several clauses OF the cOntrac
aud argued that 1t not asslgnable by its term
Afterward he gave view OF the act OF Congress und
which telegraph companies w0rked and read Tor u
Il information OF the Court number OF references While
r | he believed weighed on the point at Issue
"A Judge BatchfOrd remarked tnat inc point OF tho
i'm fendanls argument that IL was not necessary to
strain the transfer OF the property OF the Atlantic
of Pacific Telegraph Company 10 the western Union Col
ne | pany. -, . ,
TX to an order enoinng from violating contract Wit
r O proper bill Is presented"
he Judge Blatchford-I don't that the parties a
he really apart ali what 10 really the substantial
r. ter In this case but II the plaintiff insists njur
On against the completion Of the agreement OF Janua
20 | 10, 1881, that IL another thing.
Mr.. Wheeler continued the argument on behalf Of
defendants. He thought that an order could be ma
nj which would protect all the rights Of the plaintiff
~, | gpecting incoming aud outgoing messages Jud
TX Batch interrupted Mr. Wheeler, pnd said he wot
w continue the case On Monday.