National Republican., 1883-11-28
EX-SENATOR CoNKL1NG.
His Able Argument An the Dlnsmor,
Case Yesterday.


TRENTON, N. j., Nov. 27.-Ex-Senator
Conkling began his argument in the Dins-
more case at noon to-day. He charged that
the defendants had put in an answer, then,
under permission given for another purpose
endeavored to prove their answer, and now
they claimed that the allegation in their an
swer must be taken as true 1t was too late
now for them to go back. The bill alleged
nothing that is not admitted in the answer
and proved by the testimony that the defend
ants themselves had taken. Mr.. Conkling
then charged that the defendants had deceived
the chancellor and that the chancellor never
know of the intention of making the lease
He charged that the directors of the Reading
and sons of the directors had bought up Cen
tral stock on the day before the lease was
made, and that Mr.. knight had even bought
stock in the names of minors and boys and
veted proxies by them.
He claimed that the reading company had
not fulfilled its pledges Mr.. Gowen pledged
himself that the floating debt should be paid
within three months, Six months mad passed
and only little over quarter of il had
been paid, and every cent OF that came from
the Central's funds. The chancellor relaxed
the receiverShip sufficiently to authorize the
holding OF an election on May III for nine
members of the board Of directors, and for
nothing else. Now, what would your
honor, knowing what you must know
of human deviltry and cunning,
believe that they did under this
order? Nothing so bad as what these men
did warrant you. The published notice for
the meeting did not even contain that stereo-
typed FORM 'and for the transaction of such
other business as might come before the meet
ing" Some men might, upon receiving
notice such as they as trustees, published for
that meeting, have suspected that such piece
Of double distilled rascaity as was done was
contemplated. but not such man as VIM. B.
Diusmore.s Mr.. Little, and Mr.. NJ ills were at
that meeting and voted for those directors,
who, it is claimed, were pledged to
carry out this leasing scheme without ever
knowing that they were in favor of such
thing, although the answer alleges that this
pledge was of public notorety. When Mr.
Knox got Mr.. Dinsmore's proxy for the meet.
ing Of May IL nothing was said about a lease,
and Mr.. Dinsmore when he gave his proxy
plainly intended that it should be for nothing
but the election of directors Tho in
Renuity with which these different schemes
were blended and intertwined was not
chance, it was railway law it was
high railway art, it was railway manipula-
tion. 1t was done by men skilled in all the
idOlatry of railway gambling. But in spite
of the efforts of the Reading allies Mr.. Theo-
dore Little and Mr.. Mills were able to secure
against the lease the votes of 1852 shares
The action of that meeting was void, because
1t was in violation of an injunction of the
chancellor, besides proxy in any form was
illegal for such a purpose. Mr.. Conking
closed, stating that the Reading road never
accepted the lease by vote of stockholders.
nor by vote Of directors, since II was ratified
by the Central stockholders.