New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-07-16
WHO OWNS THE TELEGRAPH VIRES'
THE BIG FIGHT CONTINUED IN HARTFORD.
JUDGE sHIPMAN REFUSING TO ACT-LANDLoRD OF
THE WESTERN UNION
rBY TELEGRAPH TO THE rnIBUsH.l

fBY TELEGRAPH TO TnIBUSH.l
HARTFORD, July 15.-The fight between the
Western Union, American Rapid and Bankers and Mer'
chants Telegraph companies was continued this AFTER
neon In the United States Court in this city, The hear
ing before Judge shpman for the purpose OF get
ting his tosor Of the contract entered
into between Receiver Harland Of the American Rapid
and the Western Union Company on Friday Seldom
has Hartford favored with such array OF legal
talent The prominent figure was that OF Colonel
Robert Ingcrsol, representing principally Edward s.
Stokes who has nearly $3.50. 900 invested In the cert
Gates of tho Bankers and Merchants receiver. Other
counsel were Aaron j. vandcrpoc and ex United States
Judge John r. Dillon. for the Western unfonj
Edward Lauterbacb, Mr.. Wallis, Of March, Wilson a
Wallis Of New-York. and Morris W. Seymour, for Re-
ceiver Harand Charles E. Perkins for Receiver Farms
WORTH of the Bankers and Merchants Francis L. stct
son. Charles NJ DaCosta and William ID. Guthrie with
Messrs Ingerso ard Lautebsch. for the Reorganiza-
ton Committee of the bondboders Of the Bankers and
Merchants. General Manager j. W. Jones' OF the
Bankers and Merchants and Herbert b. Turner coun-
Farmers Loan and Trust Company were slso
present.
LAWYER seymour read the contract entered into be-
tween Receiver Harland and the Western Union
Company. Mr. Turner said that nc ap-
peared to oppose the contract and TO file papers
support Of his appeal Judge shipman asked whether
the opposition the contract based upon general
opposition any contract 10 the acts OF the western
Colonel Ingerso responded. saying that the oppos-
ton was first" that the contract made on July
10. and that day the Western Union Company fore
IDLY took possession not only Of the Rapid Company,
but Of the Bankers and Merchants property which had
never been claimed by the Rapid; second-that the
Western Union proceeded to destroy property OF the
Bankers and Merchants and did not cut the wires be-
cause they fnterfered with the business the Western
Union might do the Rapid wires but simply
for dcstuction thirdwe deny that the order OF the
Court broad enough TO these acts OF volepce
fourhThe object of the taking of the property In this
way was to destroy between the Rapid aud
the Bankers and Merchants for the strngIng Of the
wires upon each others poles; ffthMy personal objec
ton the Receiver finding any property gwen
into his charge lodged in the hands OF others should
have brought judicial proceedings at once We prefer
DEGREES Of courts to the OF mob company that
will the Western Union has done IS not Ut TO be
trusted with the property Of anybody"
Mr. Turner asked be allowed to read statement OF
facts but Mr.. Wallace objected. Judge shipman re-
peated his query whether the opposition was on the
ground that the lease improper Colonel fngersol
said that he objected any lease to monopoly Ike the
Western Union. Judge shipman then said: my idea
of this case whether the Western Union Company
has done anything wrong but whether the Receiver has
done right and whether tho contract is legal The Re-
found assuming his Office that the American
Rapid was IN the hands Of the Bankers and Merchants
and the latter In the hands OF u Receiver HOW IL
became he could not find OUT
The Judge reviewed the from the opening OF the
to the present time. and continuing said
"Now gentlemen want 1t distinctly understood that
when the court adjourned July IL was known that
the Western Union was tho competitor for and wsuld
in all likelihood become the posscssor OF the American
Rapids wires The real question. let me here say Is
shall the Western Union have the right TO operate the
wires of the American Rapid whether the price Is
100000 or 81 100000 day This is the real bottom
question"
Mr. Lauterbach remarked that II was under
stood on July / that the Bankers and Merchants
reserved tho right TO make bid Tor
the American Rapid property Judge shipman said that
n was well known that the Western Union was COM
petiior. There does not appear TO be any question
other than whether not the Western Union shall be
allowed have the temporary possession OF the proper
OF interest IN the Western Union whereby my actions
might be wrong gfuly construed l find that l am the
owner OF some shares OF stock In corporation which
is a landlord OF the Western Union l looked up
opinions ss to the position OF Judge
and now, gentlemen upon s,,m ihs no, Vlt,i lay
myself liable to have my action misconstrued. As TO
the contract 1t does 10 me 10 be the proper
course without papers application 10 refuse TO con-
firm the action OF the receiver II were TO act III the
case should insist that there be petition In regular
form" 49, . .
Mr Turner said that he had come with request for
the restoration the Bankers and Merchants or prop
crty taken by the Western Union which had never been
held by the American Rapid Judge shipman SAID that
he would decide matter between the western
Union and other companies, and that they must he
over.