New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-03-17
IMPEDING CONSOLIDATION.
TIE EEFnRrs Made BY RrFIS HRrCH.

THE EFFORTS MADE BY RUFUS HITCH.
/ SEEKING I>JUNCrIoNs Is VARIOUS CoURls-sIARP
CRITICISMS OF JUSTICE BARHETT-wnAT MIR.
HATCH SAID TO MR. GOULD, MIR. Co>NoR AND
OTHrRs BEFORE BEGINNING LEGAL PROCEED
INGs.
The history of the legal proceedings brought
by Rufus Hatch to prevent the carrying out Of the eie
graph consolidation presents striking and note
worthy facts These proceedings have been in pro-
gress nearly two months, the first preliminary
injunction in the Supreme Court having been
Obtained on January 10, ISL The argument
on the motion make the injunction permanent vas
begun January % and continued until January IS Jus
tee Barrett placed scarcely limit upon the length OF
time which ne permitted the counsel TO occupy III ther
arguments a. l. determined to allow no point u escape
Inn that nigh assist forming bis opinion and to dh5rd
no ground for by the defeated sdh tnatlt had not
been fairly and fully head. After holding tho case I'M
der examination or nearly week, Justice Barrett gave
bis decision. lie not only dissolved the injunction
hut IN his opinion he used strong language
regard Haichs conduct and supposed motives
thtoug the affair "Tne proofs with regard To the
paint r. usc Of the temporary Injunction the Judge
haNe far been noticed for the reason that
thought u better pass upon the merits at once
We feel bound say however thai the general result
had been Otherwise should sui have felt constrained
to deny the present Injunction because OF tie course
the plaintiff pursued with regard to 1t. party
apply III perfect good faith The Cour Will not permit
it, to be procured add used merely Tor Interior
purposes entirely foreign the oscnsibe object of the
Nor will permit plaintiff 10 traffic III such pro-
for purely speculative purposes"
The structures passed by the Judge were based upon
The avrrmcuts made in the aiI IavS OF jay Gould,
Washington T. Counor G.. f. Morosni and Others IA to
the representations male TO them by Mr. Hatch previous
to the consolidation In his af lav OF January % Mr.
Gould avcrred that prior TO the cOmmcnccnent OF tEe
ncgotat ions. which reslttd IN the agreement OF
January 10 1851. Rufus Hatch, complainant IN his
sun represented aGiant thai he was large stock
holder in the American Union Telegraph Company that
the interests Of all OF said Stockholders required thai
an arrangrmen; be made for the consolidation OF ead
Company with the Western Union Telegraph COMPANY
or al least for the working in JOINT interest OF 0ot
pro,eriics Complainant further stated that he had al
r " Ken steps III that direction and that h0 ana his
f. nds were getting up pool OF 100000 shares oil
Western UIiou Telegraph Company stock on whch theY
Sr.cd 10 rra!Z" large profits from the increase ID
va " which would result from harmony in interest he
tween said companies In which pool complainant urged
fi mt to partcp te. The suggestion ~ complainant as
to the advantage to both sad companies from amy Shch
arrarg cut rmed to ali ant tn be well foun'ed ana
largely influenced ai ut as director and s'oeShol"er
in tHc An. II Uuun Telegraph Company to 'oIe for
and couse:t TO ttc ARRANGEMENT which has s'hcc p'o"
made"
Mr. Conner ami ,ir Morrsini agreed substantially rs
10 the statements made them by Mr.. Hatch that he
shpuli prosecute this HchOn 10 the end uncs' thcF
woud to Lis terms In relieving him OF The Sw cha-
t,ns IA t.cgr rh stock ~ whic he was nyny'd. Mr.
Couunr sNurc tuI on January ~ Mr. Haicr trG IN
in ,uh.tnu"c INST he was TIE ncI "l 'Si,I' NV
p.;ai f!orE Of gre A" Gc SI r r.
Nrrj III toa-oIil ion o. he ihSe {" hInr' tI' nc
J',I.', I"f 6usLt to have tod lin that WESTERN
t'I"n siocS W s"nG Up N me mar" in, ~,
We (ueanny Gou'd or mysrl0 or -rm" other prsGn
for Us H." hmrricn ln!p9 1rrETpr L"mptnv N0ntl
| ITftffft 4. ln
Al IL. pr.,r ~ wlIc Western oa " - men S'linE III
tn u,r.' BE- lr iIa'rl v, uh t,'H a, u" Sa, Ir
c,iug, ~ rul:: tn say TIE rnn>oIliI.O"; 'VtI"sc
NJ, Morn, nj ~, rca thr' about the I'm or l1th .!
JI,ii,ry ~ h. o,ir Iia'ch sad t. SUBSTANCE
! i..i Lr wa. . -nrxh".ics IN Tn American U'"n ier'
Tow II, les. ,y incaniug trrrrhy Mr. Gould or -,E' ~
! the CONTRACTING rutr) b'ngh, a. Aol'r''h 'I''n
-lr.k and pad nm Al Ia" rate "i Hlio pr 'lr T u,
or un'r,s allowed 10 COM lui@ IL, ar n+' ~ III
vi th,t vlu' ON ma ''"k ihat nn's' th, No. nnG
n" intcn''d &" m'h" tr"H'r aIo|l ne c"'"A"''" '''
I"t lrrit went even further his clarac-
t.l,,. tn" m,liy"S aud co'burt Of w. ~ ,,rn
Ia rv. aspect g" th" ci-" personal /" mln , mT
s,nrEolicy. (ronr o! whom, indeed hay n.y. r"d or
cur 4" rxrrvt t. protest rRauot the Slu. tnc pdrn
ia 5d .. @a 70 mra'r that paintn cnri suppos"s
lis hl TO b. nlrd upon hrhaf II the community "r Csc
tbat IN. stat % lu"c opinion ald i'oins Is 3 "5m
mai, fctur ~ u'p"r % MS ht"rEn".d'i 49, p.i; iU'
lattcrIs c .y rols'ct Nt"w 90 ~, vi ~ II = a'h,r
and = inuy i. vcii hr un'ls"ol tllt tn" wry, $"
Ir A. nc pu.c l. ron.rrur j. not IN tlc hands ~ IN
rIr-, ujn i've ot IA" I""oc N the I"si~! 'lfr hI,
| ]
| rrslut,. Ll,ny rr.t-' ..., -,
Mr. 10, very FAR from rrsn@ contcnt WIN mi
~ .,u o. Ia rli ~hurIY after I'M Grci- luE was
ro. ag inst him re- asked tn Attorney trru".d ~
NV York beg proceeding, on hrhat 81 rae Nih'' OI
~, .N.k to Ir.sru' tb' c";-',iiHun IA" Attorney
C;,rn tbc application hs'u= his Hclnn ON tte
prounne by Jusice Barred, ~ which he Sa'd be
! iI'lV ruurIlrrrd
Mr II .'c1 has Low begun hi, suit anew, IN he
Sup riir to,rt. gong Over IN" sam ground. Ta' ~
| o. iih % i"w HIdi'lor3u POINTS sub .tT""iy me S'"r
qrstos ~ tar slh wh'c Justice hTrrtl so ".vrr'
- .I.I.r,. Judge Sl"lr. taABbtIs 81 the superior
| u,ifl has granted umprrtry injunction o. tee *
r,,,tc nup,a' OF Nj. UItrH. TH' HrEuin"ni upon
M. inrtlpu j. 1T down FOR thlS i"rIn' W. hnch
! frnslcd bond ~ Slonoo Tie actual .H"t ~ ma
an, li ou WIS D. rpr.gl.i" TIE Western l'h iT"'-
! rriy q, re,fr, ntrl by ia" stoeD over $1,000 Vop
within aztec he granting Of the application
/ VI. md, uubc