New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-03-02
THE COURTS.
STANDING UPON THEIR RIaHrs.


ARGUMENTS OF JOSEPH II. cHoATx AND Hx1suDeE
PORTER IN THE SUIT or THE CABLE COMPANY
AGAINST THE LAND LINES OF TELEGRAPH.
Joseph II. Choate, spne of the counsel for
the plaintiff In the suit brought by the Direct United
States Cable Company against the three land telegraph
companies FOR an injunction 10 prevent the complefon
OF the agreement Of consolidation dated Jaauary TO-
1891 continued his argument before JUDGE Batchford
In the United States Circuit Court yesterday morning
He devoted his attention principally the question OF
the construction 10 be placed the act Of Congress under
which land companies operated, and under which
the plaintiff contends that consolidation Is forbidden.
He that act passed In assertion uu.
limited power Of Congress in regulating commerce. and
biography portion Of the commerce Of the country.
He read reports from The OonGrcsstOna Globe to show
that when bill discussed IN the House such was
the understanding of the members.
Ell. Judge Porter next spoke behalf Of the de-
fepdants He said they asked admissions, made
any, Both sides stood in Court Of Equity. and each
asserted what believed be its legal rights. Tho
plaintiff had shown right he said, 70 any injunction
TO any decree In its favor 1t alleges right based
on contract No argument alter that contract In
any particular. The has TO be decided on certain
agreements and their legal effect Mr. Cdoae. in his
argument brought out the purpose OF the proceed
ing The three cable companies hold the monopoly Of
the business and Of all the telegraph business
OF America That secured through the pooling ar
raDgement between cable companies. They secured
the land through binding each Of tho land CON-
panes other Of the cable companies TO give
TO It exclusively the advantages Of incoming and out
going messages The grief OF the plaintiff that the
monopoly likely to be subjected to competition. While
in form the present suit Is against the Atlantic
and Pacific telegraph Company, in substance
and effect to which equity always looks it Is proceed.
BIZ cable monopoly to perpetuate the advantage
which 1t now holds and exclude competition beneath
the Atlantic. 1t is not the poucy Of mankind OF Great
Britain America France that the ocean shall not be
as Tree q highway the land In form the proceeding
the defendants from the exercise of satu
tory right In effect 1t Is TO prevent Jay Gould ana ms
associates from laying CABLE and thus prevent eope-
titiOn. The defendants have NO monopoly when they
ask the protect But the cable companies say,
they hold In their power through eonfederacy upper
mitted by our laws right 70 tax the world aEd Hs
treasure for their benefit. 49,
Judge Porter argued further that the Western Union
telegraph Company had right under the law 20 par
chase property; that sale completed by the Atanc
that those who had who held the certificates OF
Western Union Company had the right to sur III inc
for their Referring to the Act OF Congress
1866 argued that IL did forbid the amalgama~
lion.
Mr. Cboate IN reply. pointed out that Judge Porter
had quoted authorities stated any principles on
which the contract might he considered void lie read
the books many cases which he Claimed pore on
this
udge Batchford asked whether counsel ready 70
proceed with the French Cable Companys case In tho
morning. lie would be ready then 10 pass on the present
ease unless desired to dispose OF the French case
before he did Il agreed 70 proceed Win me
French case before the Direct Cable Company case
should be decided.