New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-01-27
TIE PHILADELPHIA SUIT.
FURTHER ARGUMENT IN BEHALF OF THE WESTERN
UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

FURTHER ARGUMENT IN BEHALF OF THE WESTERN
UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
ffRoM AN OCCASIONAL cORREsPoND or THE rRIBUSEI
PHILADELPHIA Jan. 2G.-In the case of the
Western Uulon Telegraph Company against the Penn
sylvania Railroad Company, tue argument for TreIi
nary Injunction restra the defendants was resumed
day United States Circuit Court before ia ICES
McKennan and Butler. Samuel Dickson. OF counsel FOR
the telegraph company spoke OF the Importance oil
telegraph as accession To the business fachtes OF
railroad, and showed that the plea OF obstruction c'u
not be offered AS the railroad company was Wiling TO
allow the wires provided an annual rent was
paid. lie said that tho telegraph company had maze All
ia improvements under Impression da 1t would rot
@ disturbed.
Judre Butler asked II the admission that the Court in
case OF with tue property OF the defendants
would be bound to consider the agreement at au END
were not a c., ncesson that the railway company could
moi confer In perpetrty right which might interfere
with their franchises
Mr. Dickson said that In this particular case that
question does not arise and III the cases In whchlt
bas arisen the between An Individual or c"rpo
ration and public and The peadngs showed direct in
reference property rglt The Court ought not to
be lasy III iinpailng vested right TIL 1t IL shown that
occasion for doing has arisen II the president OF
railway company that had granted To AZ iGdiyiJ the
right Of constructing aud using side track deprived
HIM of his own within. no Court would TecoS
niZe his authority.
of the proposed removal. for example, OF railway
depot Courts have preferred 10 enve the question
to the Judgment of the company, AMI VIII CONTINUE no
doubt LOld the decision rests with the company
whether public interests demand such removal
unless indeed, 1t should come seems not imposS'e
TO held that the management OF railroads SHOULD re
taken on tine shoulders OF the Courts
Dickson said That II there shown TO be IN any
instance an ARBITRARY exercise OF power the
Courts would assuredly interfere. But this was nos
the case OF individual but OF c0rp0iatio which had
enjoyed a certain right ALMOST as long as tue other
The Hon. WAYNE MacYtagh, OF counsel for the rail
road interposing SAID the plaintiffs bill goes on tie
ground thai t0ey perfect and ndeerminabie ris
the road and their allegations fail OF accuracy Just
AT pOlni all the agreements with them were ter
mnabe reasonable notice II ia for the Court to de
eide whether their rights perpetual or OtherwIse
and that point whether for or against The
company. tins injunction that the plaintiffs are praying
for stands or falls.
Mr.. Dickson, resuming his argument c"ntendcd that
the telegraph company. having he right OF eminent do
MAN, might have obtained by condemnation perpetual
grant the rights the railway property which
had acquired by concession ia virtue OF It's contracts
with the company.
John c. Bulli,t SAID that the right OF eminent domain
on the part Of the telegraph COMPANY implied he au
thOrlty for their poles ana wires sGch potion :.
the property OF the railroad as Was not essenh iof
Mr. na vcagh asked eter from the superintendent
of q railroad ID some uic al all That Was required u
judge cR en- AZ nded .el that between the
rights OF The Two COMPANIES the use OF the properly
there was III TINS aspect OF the 40 iucOnpalbl ~
but 10 this Mr. MicNrag once TOOK exception U"n-
ing out that OF tn defendants expressly
stated the contrary aud aVcrred That tho chin 81 th
telegraph COMPANY WAS q grave cnbdrId 'sihtnt anu
serious Interference with the paramount hnhor'y ni lh
COMPANY Its own roadway that inc Last sOih II
attracted attention t. tnc iaci thtt WhIe one "l'e
would De venieucc. number OF tIein, wcEucd
down with snow, or broken ana lying WIN ppIe per
haps blown down the track would seriously OBJ
sruct The business of tnc road. -.
Mr. Dickson, summing up, said as was shown III We
case OF the rOVcr-y OF TINS COMPANY WIN the bail
more ONO Rar0hd his cnse was iecnlary Que iI
the protection OF INJUNCTION; SECONDLY, tD"t u Wv
contracts had been mad" by "a private lnulyiuud' h
would not able revoke his license; tlrdIS' thht
the autbOtIes relied by tue otter sue fca'"h 70
State municipal contracts OF railroad III danger .!
being The discnarge Oi liz duty to the puhhc;
tnaL the defendants did alieKe that tue rafad III
this would he 50 Injured apc ias'y, tIhl II was
needless decide whether corporation had righ' 10
make contract in perpeiuity likely ~ hinder ls uutcs
TO the hubble, bccae such conflict bdd ailttn Out on
the contrary evident That the concurrent use "i
the lines by both companies was coHSlsttnt Win tho
rights aud duties OF DOf1.
The Court TOOK The matter under advisenent.