The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1886-01-16
EnE soUTn PENNsYLYANIA.
The Court Decides 70 Continue the IujuuC.
tlon-A Railroad Deal.


HARRISBURG, Jan. 15.-The court thil
morning handed down a lengthy and
comprehensive opinion in the litigation
recently instituted by the Attorney Gen.
eral to prevent q transfer Of the South
Pennsylvania Railroad Company to the
Pennsylvania road. He arst gives d
careful recital Of the facts Of the case As
brought out during the trial and argu.
ment of the case, and fnds as the most
importanttaC that the Pennsylvania road
by reason Of its contracta with certain
other roads at ia western terminus, was a
parallel and competing line, especially Ii
such road, when completed would actual.
y compete with the read seeking control,
Before completion 1t Is parallel, when
completed 1t becomes competing.
Regarding the right TO sell the stock,
the Court saya; THE contemplated COM
btnation was for the express purpose Of an
abandonment Of the rights and duties
conferred by the act Incorporating the
company, and for the purposes OF putting
the control Of the South PENNSYLVANIA
into the hands Of It's rival, This Is an act
contrary to the public policy OF the State,
which they have no right TO do, A char.
ter Is q contract, and impose duties as
well as conlers rights. II the taking Of
private property for the purpose OF con-
stTuetiDg q railroad upon Il Is taking II lor
public use, then the public must have an
interest In such use"
In conclusion, the Court says; "Butss
our purpose here is to show merely that
parties to this transaction were NOT deal,
ing with purely private matter, we will
not pursue this subject further, nor are
We concerned with the question whether
there be power In the courts to compel
the construction Of a railroad by a Corpo.
ration which has undertaken It, What
We here decide IL simply that the corpo.
taters have no such right to sell their
stock as can In any way interfere with the
granting OF an Injunction to prevent a
competing corporation from obtaining
iontrol Of the corporation charged with
the duty Of Its construction. We have
notoyerlooked any OF the questions argued
by counsel, but In our view the case does
1ot call for the decision OF any other than
those considered above. The result Of
the deClsionis that the injunction must
be continued as to the PennsyIyania Raj.
road Company, the Pennsylvania Company
and the Beliord X Bridgeport Rsitroad
Company,a and dissolved as 10 the other de.
lendantB."
In the suit instituted by the Attorney
General vs, the, Beech Greek, ,Oleartleld and
Southwestern Railroad company, The
Pennsylvania Railroad company and the
Northern Central Railway company, the
court, in somewhat lengthy opinion,
ands that the injunction must be continu.
ed until final hearing, so far ss the Penn.
sylyania Railroad company and the Ncr!h-
ern Central Railway company are con.
cerned, and that "the evidence before is
does not require It's continuance against
the other defendants"
After reciting the facts Of the cases the
court says: I'VE do not think the Penn-
sylyania Railroad and Northern Central
Railway companies are In q position 10
urge before q Court OF Equity that the
bargain, II fully carried out, would not
violate seohon 8 OF article II Of the Con.
stltuhon."l
Continuing, the Court concludes: "As
to the Beech Greek, Clearhsld and South
western, 1t Is enough to say that nothing
now before US requires III To consider
whether In any case they are properly
subject to this constitutional provision ii
question, as the evidence now is that at
least nothing has been proved which calls
upon Us to continue the injunction against
them, and so far as they are concerned 1t
Is therefore dismissed"