New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-01-28
POINTS IN rAyoR OE CONsOLIDATION.


case will continue to-day.
POINTS IN FAVOR OF CONSOLIDATION
Ex-Judge Dillon. in opening his argument,
OK planned that appeared both for those III
the action VINO combine characters OF
md directors Of the American Union Company anu a
for the owners or in stock who were deepy
interested IN the action although not made paueS u
on she record. the case OF Dill IN equity no siu'
xhrss questions always arose--drst' who seeks the re
Slef: second, against whom Is the RELIEF
souxht; and third. what IS the nature OF the
relief demanded. The bill com mt brought by Mr..
Hatch was one technically known as Stockholders
bjl." upon which the law declared to be settled
Mr. Hatch complained that the corporations and
their directors aimed an Unfair blow not
against him alone. II. at all, but against
the body OF the stockholders of the American
Unou Company. He said hold 100 shares OF the
stock OF the company" lie did not say when he got The
stccR but only that he had IL This declaration Of
1 Hatch perfectly consistent with the fact that he
obtained stock only two days before he his
action.
TIE complainant bad extended invitation TO all
other Stockholders 20 In and receive the benefits
OF action. but not single stakeholder had accepted
che Invitation and joined with HIM to protest against
the blow alleged to DO aimed such great private aud
public interests.
In answer 10 the second question, Judge Dillon de-
clared defendants stockholders OF
The companies and that they did not wish the relief
which Mr. Hatch sought to obtain for them Mr.. Hatch
had demanded in his complaint that the Court should
epjoin tho Western Union Company from increasing It's
stock but Mr. Hatch was not stakeholder of this corn
pany, and had no right whatever make such a de-
snAnd de hed also asked an nuacuon 10 prevent tne
, or trarS az re n,onar,x or r9Ri os ~
that were illegal transaction and not the planest
aa adSs Dillon the
81 ecnscdson had been substantially eops,Sd be-
that there remained nothing for the Court to enion
socf should be prohibited from exercising their legal
right Of ratfying or rejecting the agreement pro.
weil-known principle OF law that q stockboder's
S O1nd be S G
acting xtfa rres: and second. when thetrusiees or
directors OF the company nal peen sa VI son. actual
1,vats onruoses Mr. Hatch hat alleged IN supoort OF
the Injunction fraud the of the directors OF the
Americau gnloh Company ous .me Uourt mouu Henep
and Mr. Hatchs CHARGE was in no way sDecic it lacked
body substance Relief In equity was declared to be
matter moi OF nent put Oh gra's anu ~ never M0uIu
han been sustain sincc tnt stock of The Western Union
Company had advanced shout 80 per cent after the
sgresmeat o. Gonson1snon ceca" ,h HOW'LL y, h
onpt into his hacker and went away and profaned it,
and made merchandise OF it."
CONTINUING AT A DIsADvANTAGE.
Judge Dillon said he had not heard the argument Of
Mr. sawell and asked that he might be informed Ill IT,
TO- ns 1
yuertou declined to repeat argument made by Mr.
Hatohs counsel. and referred Judge Dillon to his
associates IN the case Inc speaker therefore, was
eoheeo 70 con'ihue LIS "'"ou' .ne ueSreu IN
The statute law OF New York on the question and that
the consolidation had been repeatedly authorized in the
acts passed since ls4s dc also asserted that public
Hy Sg s 81 Ga s : b.
however that he adopted the sentiment Of eminent
aosSS }aase Tno a saa uS t 1osy ops sh vii 9
way witn him"
mept. read ,6e sfdavt OF John Van Home vcc-presi
dent Of the Western Uuion Company. in opposition to
s sSs when e
upon ,he iaees Of tsssrapnng sEjoyea by tns pup
The eoc that tine facilities would be greatly Increased
BY the consolidation. - .,. -
CLOSING Foh me "hsIhhN osioN.
readirx Of the affidavit, began the closing argu.
80, ,, nssst, ~ the western IJ,,ob Comr,nv.
%s recyr us in the beginning. to the great
number of to be affected by the Judgment IN the
su',' "1 -, ..o,,ah, No .ro; ooso Ia1
u 80. ,',.,,aa parrat. r.s o,avo,od 90 ,no
reo" :" 'nu 'oN.e =. 49,, -, ,,rho. ,, a.,
.'eNo" ~. s. - str 80. en-. NJ tro,oh as ,a, |
INC oaso 'no n.ss .sa.a ,rno r.. o,a,mod % ronra'
u'' :" ~ ss s,,. a., ,,us g., america Or rrnns
., tho 1,our, ,or s1e ,rocess ,slch
he had otsinod not to serve any worthy purpose
that OF spool OF wali-s, sPeenlat0rs
an. NJ me sInremc Court of this Stale 10
dlsfranchise those whom the Legislature had enfran
chsed and to attempt to Interrupt the business OF cor
p mi H q ~ wse the cnnrts in aio Of STOCK
GAMBLERS could be compared TO nothing but the |
srcsi1ned that Kufns ri ltch las made case for au-
nnIins the laws Of the state Of NewYork
tng disability OF three great corporations or for dis
ss ss5s Bill me S S made
ana loses unless the court comes to his rescue II no
docs 80 at the expense Of the stockholders OF
hi company. for they never agreed that they would
eacrce millions ID order he might make 500 O0O
In regard TO the circumstances under which the
sSa1 M pa nssent ~ anaIiS esabshed 70 he the