Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-05-02
THE READINGS ANSWER.
Its Lawyers Claim That tho Recent Deal
Does Not Violate the Constitution.

AtB Lawyers Claim That tho heccnt Deal
Does Not Violate the Constitution.
HARRISBURG, May 1.-Attorney General
Hensel having ruled the numerous defen-
dants in the suit against the socalled Read
fng:com bfne "to plead, answer or demure," +"
they have responded by doing all three.
The Philadelphia and Reading Railroad
Company, over the signatures Of it's counsel.
NJ. e. Olmstead and W. B. Lamberton, of
Harrisburg; George F. Baer, of Reading, and
Thomas Hart, Jr., and John G. johnson, of
Philadelphia, has submitted q separate an
swer and demurrer setting forth in detail all
the railroads and branches owned or con-
trolled by It in Pennsylvania, and also all the
roads and branches owned or controlled by
the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, and
denying emphatfcally that these two sys-
TENS are parallel and competing within the
meaning of the Constitution Of Pennsyl-
vania
The leasing of the Lehigh Valley lines by
the Reading is admitted, but the answer
claims that the agreement was distinctly
authorized by the charters of the two COM
panies and that IL is not in any way in con-
flict with the Constitution and laws Of
Pennsylvania. The answer admits that the
Port Reading Railroad Company, corpora
tfon OF New jersey has leased the Central
Railroad of New Jersey, but denies that the
Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Com
capital stock of the Port Reading Company
but on the contrary AYERS that the entire
stock of that company is held by construc-
tton company, and that the lease Ia fully
authorized by the laws Of New Jersey.
where the respective parties thereto are
located.
The answer is very full and complete as. to
allegations contained in the Attorney Cen
erals bill OF complaint believed to be
material: but the company demurs to sun
dry Of said allegations, particularly as to the
relations Of the Philadelphia and Reading
Coal and Iron Company. the Lehigh Valley
Coal Company and the Lehigh and Wtlkes-
barre Coal Company, con tending that, II all
OF the Attorney Generals allegations are
true, they, nevertheless, do not constitute
any violation Of law or public policy.
The separate answer and demurrer OF the
Lehigh Valley Railroad Company by its coun-
tested by John r. Fanshawe Secretary is
substantially the same as that of the Read
ing. 1t denies that its lines parallel the
Reading.
The Philadelphia and Reading Coal Com
pany filed a similar demurrer. The Port
Reading Railroad Company files separate
answer, stating that 1t is q corporation of
the State of New Jersey; that It's railroad
is within that State; that its capital stock is
not the property of the Philadelphia and
Reading Railroad Company, but is owned
by construction company, and that its
ofncers and agents are in no way under the
direction or control OF the Philadelphia and
Reading except as from a community fin
terest they are or may be willing to conduct
the operations of the two companies in har-
mony; but the two corporations are, in law,
separate, in dependent and distinct.
The lease Of the Central Railroad Com
panY of New Jersey is declared to be ID
valid, lawful and subsisting contract be-
tween two corporations of the State of New
Jersey, which cannot in any manner infringe
Or violate the Constitution of the State of
Pennsylvania, nor in any manner be con-
trolled or affected thereby"
The same counsel filed separate answer
for the Lehigh Coal and Navigation Com
pany, which admits that it owns the Lehigh
and SusQuehanna Railroad, which Is leased
to the Central Railroad Company of New
Jersey, but denies that it was a party to the
agreement whereby that road was leased to
the Port Reading Railroad Company. The
same counsel enter plea for the Lehtgh
and Wilkesbarre Coal Company, denying
that the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad
has leased or acquired control Of its mines,
collieries. etc. The papers will be filed with
the court tomorrow morning.