The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-07-20
MIR. Die FoREEsI,s ARGUMENT.
Against the Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction.

-
Against the Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction.
Robert w. De Forest. an able New
York lawyer, opposed the motion for a
preliminary injunction in the relief de.
lnanded by the Information against the
Reading and Port Reading Railroad Com
pauies, to prevent their continuing to act
under The lease and tripartlte agreement
of February II, 1892; against the Central
Company, to compel II to resume posses
sion and operation of the leased properti;
against all three companies, to prevent
their increasing the price OF Coal 10 the
Inhabitants OF New Jersey. ne relief
demanded on final judgment" ne said.
rs Identical with the relief sough Oh
this motion for a preliminary Injunction.
To sraut the motion for Il preliminary in
junction is practically to render hnal
judgment in the cause.
GROUNDS OF APPLICATION.
"The grounds upon which relief is de-
nj nded may be summarized a., follows:
'.1hat Lhe lease OF tue RAILROAD Of the
Lehigh Coal aud Navigation Company
and the purchase of rolling STOCK made in
connection there With, were ultra viles on
the part of the Central.
THAT the business of mining and SELL
ing, us the owner of coal lands. and be-
cause ii owns y majority of the Lehigh
and Wilkesbarre Coal Company, is ultra
vires on the part of the Central.
THAT the lease Of May 90, 1885, made
by the Central to the Philadelphia and
Reading, was held to be void in a suit
brought by Mills. executor of Stephen
Vail, deceased. a dissenting stockhuider,
aud he lnyalidity of the present lease is
tile refore res adjudicata in this Court.
''Ihat the lease of February IL, 1922. to
the Port ReadIng is void. because not au-
thnriz~d by stockholders of the Central;
hot acknowledged or proved aud lodged
for record Within thirty days from the
date of its execution. 10 authorized by
the amendment OF March IL, 1880, to the
GeIie. al Railroad Law or, if so author
lied. that SAID amendment is unconstitu-
tlOnal; the promotion of the Port Reat j.
ing Railroad Company and the Relations
bel the officers, directors and stock
holders of these Two companies make the
lie ss III law a lease to the philadelphia
and Recalling, a foreign corporation,
which is Illegal because In violation OF
the law of May 2. 1885, respecting the
leasing of railroads; not authorized by
the Ceutral's charter Or its supplements.
1t includes other railroads which the Gem
trail controls by lease or otherwise, aHd
canDoitl lawfully ALLEVIATE.
That the defendant corporations are
owners OF coal land aud miners and sell
lers of coal, and have made u combination
To arbitrarily increase the price of coal to
the iuhabi ants of New Jersey.
"rhn The trfpaitite agreement is ultra
v,res both as TO the Central and Reading.
Careful analysis of the information
shows The foregoing to 9e the only ma
terial grounds OF relief.
THE VITAL QUESTION.
"The question is not, what Judgment
should be rendered after tull hearing and
careful balancing OF the equities Oh both
sides, but only whether the case is now
so clear and the public injury so imme-
diate and irreparable as 10 justify q pre-
liminary injunction before trial which
would be tantamount 10 fiual Judge
ment.
Moreover, such. an injunction would
not be preventive. to maintain an exist
lug situation, but mandatory TO create O
new situation. Such an Injunction is
rarely. If ever, granted until alter lriai.
10 defeat The present motion, the de-
PENDANTS need go no further than to
pr We that the informanJ's case is doubt
HE injury which cannot be eompent ated
by M Dey damages If Judgment be post
poaed until after rial"
Nj. De Forlest cited several decision
to illustrate the above coIciusions. He
declared that the lease had been ratified
by Tine stockholders. As to its not being
recorded Within thirty days. he also said
The certificate of the Secretary or
State proves that it was. There
can be no question that this lease
was not known to the officer of
State. He turned to the question of
monopoly, and said the tendency of the
complainants was TO charge that the COM
panieS have combined 10 raise the price
of COZ. He challenged them to prove
that the price of coal hal been raised by
any Acs of the defendants. and concluded