New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-03-16
THE COURTS.
THE TELEGRAPH ARGUMENT At SYRACUSE.

SHALL THE INJUSCrION OBTAINED BY THE WE'i-
Urn CNION BE CONTINUED;
The motion for the continuance of the tempo
rarv Injunction obtained by the Western Union Telegraph
COMPANY against the National Telegraph Company, tho
R,lifuore and Ohio telegraph Company and the New.
York West Shore and Buffalo Railway Company
WA, argued before Judge Wallace in the United
states Circuit Court, at Syracuse, yesterday Tbs
Western Union Company based its claim Tor tho
Injunction upon an agreement made By IL with the Jersey
city and Albany Railway Company on January y l''O'
which contained the following clause:
The railway company, SO far as ii legally may hereby
grants and agrees to the telegraph company an
exclusive right OF way and along the line ana lana, OF
the railway company ana on any extensions OF
thereof Tor ne construction ana Use u lines ~ poc- ana
wires tor commercial or public uses or business WIN mo
right put from time 10 time such additional wires
lines of poles ana wires a. The telegraph company may
deem expedeut
The plaintiff claimed that this agreement gave IL tho
right to use this railroad line for telegraph purposes 10
fine exclusion of all other telegraph companies; that tho
defend mt telegraph companies could only acquire tho
cht 70 Use this route by invoking the right Of eminent
domain or by paying the Western Union for the privilege
that they had done neither hut had constructed and Wera
threatening 10 construct telegraph lines along the rail-
road in question which would Interfere with
the lines OF tho Western Union Company; that
iuasmuch as the West Shore Company was corporation
made up by the consolidation OF slg jersey p ai,
Company, it, entire line from Weehawken 70 BuHap
came within the scope OF the above agreement the new
portions beng actually eNensiOn OF the road OF mo
Company with which the agreement was made. There,
fore il was agreed, the injunction should extend u 4
portions Of the West Shore road On the part OF tho
deleudants it cOneuded that the language or me
agreement AN exclusive right Or way on ana along mo
limo" etc. did not mean that all other companies
were 10 be excluded from running lines along the same
railroad but that the Western Union should nave way
which was adequate for us purposes rom whlch way
other companies would De excluded But TINS Wouil nor
prevent another company erecting lines OF poles ana o.
tablishing another way along the same road pLo'lG
fus n did not interfere with the Western Unions VIZ
If bv this agreement II was intended 10 create IN the
Western Union right To have al other teit-l'ni
companies excluded from the railroad compan.
ri ht way, whether II should p'
usad or needed by the western Union or net,
then il was urged the stipulation void and conveyed
no interest or privilege whatever This claim was past0
upon a Federal statute OF 1866. IL was also contouaed
that such an agreement would be against public poly,
A. being in restraint Of trade tending To repfeSs com
petition and establish monopoly; amt also thtt S"ch
Grant would exceed the railroad cOmpanys power.
Nessrs HARRISON and SWayne represented the western
Union unon the r1Imcnt; MeSsrs. LoWrey aip Bacon
the defendant telegraph company, aud Ill. Waters tAJ
defendant railroad company