New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-01-26
ASKING FOR an INJUNCTION

THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY AGAINST
TIE Pennsylvania RAILRoAD-A QUESTION OF
CONTRACT.
rrRoM AN OCCASIONAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBCNE
PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 25.-Arguments were
heard to-day before Judges McKenDan aud Butler In
the United states Circuit Court for the Eastern District
OF Aha in the OF the Western Union Iee-
graph Company against the Pennsylvania Railroad
Company aud the connecting corporations, the Belye-
dere, Delaware Philadelphia and Trenton; and the
limited Ney.Jersey Railroad aud Canal Company. The
motion was for preliminary injunction to restrain the
railroad comr from interference with the privileges
and property PLAINTIFF who were represented by
Samuel Dickson, John c. Bullet and D. Williamson
The defence conducted by David W. Seuers and the
Hon. Wayne Macveagh.
In behalf Of the telegraph company Mr.. Dickson
claimed that contract or Its equivalent existed since
1916 and that If there had been contract granting
the telegraph company the privileges Claimed even II
there had been only parole license the defendants
would In equity have been estOpped from canceling
those privileges and from deprving the plaintiffs Of the
profit accruing from expenditures and improvements
tacity aSsented to during period OF thirty years
Mr.. Dickson, continuing said:
These lines have existed for thirty years. the railroad
company enjoys TO this very moment the emolument
pledged by the referred to- The railroad com;
pany merely desired to obtain compensation II entitled
10 t Such compensation, though taking the form OF
damages would in fact be In the nature or an annual
rental All that the telegraph company being Invested s
Court would during the interval to eapse before the
decision arrest the threatened action OF the
railway company which, though the menace was yelled
In coureouG language, had intinsted an intention OF
tearing down the wires and pulling up the poles OF the
Western Union along the lines or road above referred 10
"A proceeding which would prove ruinous TO the tele-
graph company.
In reply Mr Sellers maintained that the rights OF the
plaintiffs depended upon writings which proved only
that they cori not tho roadway OF the defendants
for their poles and wires In reply to the PLANTING
argument drawn from the question of public conven-
ience he said that there other routes open TO
the public the respondent not bound as corpora
ton TO contribute that public convenience 10 the
profit of the plaintiff unless by virtue of contract
Wayne MacVeagh followed on behalf OF the railroad
comp mpany arguing that the Western Union had doubt
full ttle without paying for IT. aud that II was pretend
ed that without formal contract there had grown up
r;ont which no sane man would believe mad ever been
GRANTED contract. Ia Ii pretended he asked, that
on such showing the bin itself makes any Count OF
Faulty ever held by construction the dOctr1ne or
pei peual right % There never was contracti t'ere
was only license, and that license the PennsyVana
Railroad Company revohes after due notice.
Mr. Dickson answered that the case was SIMPLY one IN
which q public corporation duly lnVesteu WIN tne
power eminent domain hau constructed s lines WIN
fhe consent defendants, alleged contract right,
and claimed that they could not De removed luey Iau
an amcabe suit to determine the question OF
title and meantime asked preliminary INJUNCTION 70
restrnin the defendants from runously interfering WIN
fheir property and privileges. Mr.. MacNeaRh denled
that n urma face title had been shown ,,
Judge Butler asked why the application Tor prehni'
nary Injunction had not been made carrier -.
Mr. Dickson ans wered that the correspondence nno
closed only the last day OF December anu that al que
diligence mad been used
Pending the argument, the court adjourned