New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-03-03
TELEGRAPH AMALGA. TON.
THE FRENCH CABLE CoMPANY's SUIT.

THE FRENCH CABLE COMPANYS SUIT.
SEEKING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE CoSsoLIDA-
lion sCHRME-A CONSPIRACY ALLEGED TO Sc
CURE BUSINESS FOR THE NEW CABLE CON-
PANY-ARGUMENTs on BOTH SIDES.
The hearing i'll the proceeding III equity brought
nv the Campagnie Franchise du Telegraph de faris
New York against the American Union Telegraph
Company and Others IN the United States Circuit
Court before Judge Blatclford was had YESTERDAY.
The parties to the proceeding were represented by
the same counsel rs appeared III the Direct CnIted
States Cable Companys suit the argument IN
which was concluded on Tuesday afternoon A.
Mr. Delafeld, in opening the case, explained that
the French Company hal an agreement with the
American Union Telegraph Company Tor the inclu-
sye interchange of unconsigned messages tor
term of twenty years from the date Of the opening
of the Cable Company's line. The Telegraph Com
pany had further agreed TO MAINTAIN IN good order
and condition certain land lines owned by the
Cable Company while the first agreement lasted.
These agreements he continued cond not be carried
out by the Western Union Teegraph Company under
the terms of tho consolidation agreement OF Janu-
ary 1881. Reference was also made to the agree
ment between the American Union Telegraph Com
MANY which was admittedly controlled by jaw
GonId. and the American Telegraph and Cable Com
pany, also controlled by Mr.. Gould. IL was con-
tended that this contract evidence of bad faith
on the part of the American Union Telegraph Com
PAW inasmucb as II would he impossible for the
Western Union to fulfil the obligations OF both. IL
was further alleged that the contract with the
American Telegraph and Cable Company was part
of the conspiracy entered into between Jay Gould
and his associates to gam the control OF the cable
business of America, and that BY the consolidation
of the land lines that contract became the properly
of the Western Union Telegraph Company, which.
II was cOntended. was owned by Mr. Gould. his,
Mr. Delaield admitted. was denied by the defend
ants and III order To arrive NJ the truth lie asked
that the defendants lie ordered to produce list o:
the names OF the shareholders OF the Western Union
Telegraph Company.
names we're at all necessary. 1t made no difference
to the case whether Mr.. Could owned majority OF
the stock or not. Mr.. Gould was no more TO the
a.. III, tbaru ma La A
than Justice. If the stockholders had the right to
do As they desired they would be allowed to 10 so
whether Mr.. Gould was a large holder or nor.
Mr. Dtlateld, while asserting TO the opinion of
the Court said that the object was to show that a
conspiracy existed between General Ecket, u. II.
Rates Frederick l.. Ames and jay Gould 10 secure
ali the business for the new cable company. He
showed that the American Union Telegraph Com
pany had agreed to the provisions of the act of Com
errSs which stipulated against anna GaulatlOns. and
he declared that the public policy of the country
was opposed to tcleVraphic monopoly, quoting from
Que Of General Grants messages III support OF his
statement.
MIR Wheeler for the defendants. called attention
to the argument made in tie Direct Cable Com
pany's case. that Ivy reason OF the pooling arrange
meut between the cable companies tho exclusive
character of the contracts bad been taken away ;
and also TO the argument that the western Lnlon
Telegraph Company was capable OF iulhilihg Tue
obligations of the Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph
Company. These, he said. would apply with equal
force TO the present case. lie alleged that the
agreement between the cable companies remOv ed
the entire consideration from the contract between
the French Cable Company and the American
Union Telegraph Company. lie Justified the agree
that the French Company had ~ neglected ltS
duties and business that 1t was necessary for she
American Union Telegraph Company to ma new
aly This neglect Of business, ho argued also Jis-
fitted the land company selling It's property. lie
admitted that the plaintiff might be entitled To-
some KIND of relief but he cGnt"nded That II must
be on some ot her iOiIn al Application.
Mr.. Da(,osta next spoke on behalf Of the plaintiff
He met the allegation that the French company had
neglected It's business by qnotng rom the contract
TO show that III such event the Americ IN Union
Telegraph Company had "A ngnt Ia discontinue the
agreeneAt. The question to lie decided was whether
the Gould contract was not direct and absolute al
tr,nnt tn violate the rights secured to the French
Cable Company by its contract with the American
Union Telegraph Company. 49,
Judge BlatchfOrd SAID that the Western Union did
not pretend that it going to carry out the three
exclusive contracts.
MIR ia Costa replied that counsel had stated over
and over again that The Western Union Company
MIR. Whceler-That is so to nm extent. All MESA
yes received the line of the Atlantic and Pacific
Telegraph Company viii be delivered To tho Direct
company. and all messages received over the Amcrl-
can Union wires will be given to the French COM
pany. H.: r A. ,v.
Union Telegraph Company
Mr.. WhcelcT-lhey are.
Mr. DACosa-Ihen how are you gong TO Keep
vour exclusive contract with the AnglOAmerlcan
Gable Company and with the American Cable anu
Telegraph Company
JudRe BlatChiOrd-lHeN 90 not pIHlfnl tuat tHPN
will give everything to Jay Goulds cable company
and aferward give YOU something
Mr.. DaCosta-Tlen am content. The premises
of my argument are correct, because they cannot
possibly fulfill their contracts.
Judge BlatchiOrd-li there be any conflict YOU arc
prior IN time and are inutled 20 the preference
Mr. Da Costa-Will there be any harm then. in
vour Honor giving us injunction to that effect
General Swaync-YOu would not put peaceable
man under bonds to keep the peace
MIR Da COsta-But the Western Union is not
neaceable We do not desire injunction against
the LAYING of the new cable, but to prevent the
agreement between the AMERICAN Uuion Telegraph
Company and the American Telegraph and Cable
Company being carried out
General Swayne contendcd that the Western
UuIon Company was prepared to carry ont tho con-
tracts OF the Atlantic and Pacific Company and the
American Union Company only 80 far as future III
yestigation might show to be right when considered
with previous contracts. 1t assumes nothing, but
reserved to itself the right TO question the validity
of all contracts which by the amalgamatlon came
Mr. Choate made the closing argument. He pointed
ont that the facts in this did much to strengthen
the uosltion of the Direct Cable Company in It's suit
against the Atlantic and Pacific Telegraph Company.
IL was clear he said. that all the nights IN the three
WORKING agreements between the cable and land
compalIies remained i'll the consolidation, and that
the act contemplated by the agreement with JAY
Gould was an attempt at complete annihllation OF
all tie working contracts. He c0nended that an
Injunction should be granted against the American
Union Company. lie denied that the pooling agree
ment between the cable companies debalred the de-
PENDANT companies from any OF tho rights they were
entitled TO under the working agreements with the
| cable companies Competition was still maintained
| between the cable companies although they pooled
their receipts. This concluded the argument, and
Judge Blatchfor said: If You wi attend here mt
| ii o'clock Tomorrow uhursday~ lnurning will
say something"
THE ORDER IN MR.. WILLIAMS ACTION.
Robert Sewell and ex-Judgc John X. Porter
appeared YESTERDAY before CnieJadgo sedgwck IN the
Superior Court, Chambers, the settlement Of tho