Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-07-02
NEW MEXICO.
The Great Railway suit-Resume of the
Case.

The Great Railway Suit-Resume of the
Case.
SANTA FE, July 1st-The hearing Of the
case of the Texas Pacific Railroad Company
VS.. The Southern Pacific Company of New
Mexico, was commenced before Judge Bris-
toll on the oath ult.
On the 18th day of May the Judge, on
an ex parte application, granted temporary
injunction against the defendant, restraining
it from operating the road, and appointed
Receiver to take possession thereof, The
road had been leased to the Central Pacific,
was being operated by it. and as the Central
Pacific Company was not made party to
the suit the injunction was imperative as TO
it, and when the Receiver proceeded to take
possession he could not find anyone repre-
senting the Southern Pacific of New Mexico
upon whom to make demand. The Receiver
decided to treat the matter as his sound con-
sentative Judgment dictated, and did not
appear to be anxious to bring about col
lision. more especially as the hearing of the
case had been fixed for the oath. He reported
informally to Judge Bristol who was salts
fed to allow the matter to rest until the
hearing.
On the Oath the case was opened. The
reading of the pleadings, exhibits and affi-
davits occupied from the oath to the 2Sth, in
elusive. The Texas Pacific has made two
amendments to the bill as originally fled.
The first charged the insolvency of the
Southern Pacific, and the second amendment
charged conspiracy between the several
Southern Pacific roads and the Central, to
defraud the complainant, and proposed to
come in and pay for the road in New Mexico
such sum as it should be found to be worth.
This amendment contained also the offer to
deposit 81 600, 600, in money and bonds, as q
security for such payment.
Each party introduced certified copy of
the map filed in the Office of the Secretary of
the Interior, showing the location of the road
and the land grant of the complainant These
maps differed in essential particulars, and
Judge Sanderson, for defendant called atten-
ton to this discrepancy, and also telegraphed
to the Secretary, asking an explanation.
The Secretary answered that certain red lines,
and the explanatory wordsialong the same,
found on the copy produced by the Texas Pa
cifc Railroad, did not exist on the original on
file in his Office. 1t is claimed by defendants
counsel that the map filed with the Secretary
does not comply with the Act of Congress
under which complainant claims, and that
hence there has not been any valid location
by the Texas Pacific for any legal reservation
in its favor. The line of road through Texas
is not laid down on any of the copies, nor on
the original.
After the reading of the papers, ex-senator
Stewart opened for the defendant in an able
argument, lasting four hours, during which
he made, among others, the following points
First, that the title had never vested in the
complainant because it had failed to file
map in the Office of the Secretary of the
Interior, as required by its charter it
appearing that the map, instead of being
map from Marshal, Tex, to San Diego, Cal,
was only map of the route from Ell Paso to
San Diego, being less than half the distance.
Second, that the action of the Secretary of
the Interior in withdrawing the lands was q
nullity, for the reason that no sufficient map
of the line of road had been filed, as required
by the compliments charter. Third, that
the building of the road was condition
precedent to the acquisition of any title.
Fourth, the right of the complainant
land was not sustained by the terms
of its charter Fifth, that the Southern
Pacific Company had right to build its road
under and by virtue of a right of way
granted under the Act of Congress
of March 3, 1875. it having complied
with the conditions of that Act Sixth. that
the rights of the Southern Pacific were Sc
cured, because at the time of the passage of
the Act of 1875 the land claimed by COM
plainant was public land, for the reason that
it had not secured the withdrawal by comply
ing with the conditions precedent contained
in the compliments charter. Seventh, that
independently of the Act of 1875 the South
ern Pacific had q right to acquire right of
way through the lands under and by virtue
of the twenty.frst section of the complain
ants charter, which provides for other COM
panies crossing the lands and road of
complainant, and gives them a right
of way two hundred feet wide. Eighth.
that the Southern Pacific has right to con-
denim the lands of the complainant, if it has
any under and by virtue of its charter OBJ
tanned from the Territory of New Mexico.
Ninth and lastly, the complainant has no
remedy in equity, conceding that its franchises
and land grant are still valid, for the reason
that it has stood by with full knowledge
of the construction of defendants road, and
objection on its part, and by its silence and
acquiesence has actually consented to the
construction of the road, as shown by the
correspondence between the executive officers
Of the two companies in relation to agreeing
upon plan of exchange of business when
ever their roads should connect at or near Ell
Paso.
At the conclusion of Senator Stewards ar
gumeut, Judge Herman, solicitor for COM
plainant commenced his opening and is still
Occupying the floor, most of his time being
consumed in reading authorities in support of
the proposition that the complainant has ex-
elusive privileges, and alone has the right to
build railroads along the thirty-second paral-
lei of north latitude and within the eighty
mile limit of the compliments grant.
Upon the conclusion of his argument, Judge
Harvey S. Brown will address the Court in
behalf of the defendants.