, 1892-12-08
OVER THE ISTHMUS.
The Fight in the Courts for the
Traffic.

Interesting Legal SparrIng ia New
York Between the Pacific Mail
Steam-hip Company and a Chill
Ian Enterprise.
New YORK. Dec. S.-Judge Ingraham, of
the supreme court chamber, yesterday
heard the argument on the motion made
by Edward Lauterbach, representing the
Pacific Mail Steamship company, to make
permanent the temporary injunction
granted by Judge Truax, restraining the
Panama Railway company from entering
into an agreement with a Chilian line of
steamers, represented in this country by
William R. Grace & Co., from carrying pas
sengers, freight or mail from any one or
more of the ports lying between Panama
and Acapulco. Mr. Lauterbach said that
the application was based upon the agree
ment made between the steamship COM
pany and the railroad company on the 1st
of October, when the latter sold to the Pa
cifC Mail Steamship company the steam
ships then owned by it, the steamship
wharves and railroad itself, with all its
good wills, for the sum of 100000 He said
that in making the proposed contract with
the Chllian line of steamships it was not
only violating an agreement by which the
railroad company bound Itself to discour-
age all competing steamship trade,
but there was also involved
the violation of clause conveying good
will to the defendant company, the steam
ship company.
Lawyer Coudert, for the railroad COM
pany, admitted that the agreement pro-
vided for the sale of the good will of the
service and carrying the trade of the rail-
road company. They also stipulated not
to interest themselves directly or indi
rectly in the establishment or operation OF
the steamship line. He claimed that nei-
ther of these promises had been violated.
Judge Ingraham asked whether or not it
was true that the refusal of the railroad
company to afford the steamship company
the privilege of through bills of lading wa:
not an interference with the business oil
that company, when the good will was
transferred to that management.
Mr.. COudert claimed that TO be a matter
of contract and should be settled by sui
for damages and not by injunction. Tht
railroad company was willing TO make {
/ contract with the company, but were una
BILE to do so, and therefore had to find some
other corporation willing to make fai
agreement and grant guarantee.
! DuIlllS bu6 argument, Lawyer LaQJer
back claimed that the treaty made be
tween the United States and the govern
ment of New Granada in 1848 applied thu
! Monroe doctrine to the Isthmus, thu
making it neutral ground. The present
attempt he declared was made by foreign
country to GUST a New York corporation
from any share in the traffic through tn
| Isthmus.
Lawyer COudert remarked that reference
to the Monroe doctrine and crippling o
American commerce was only ment for re
! pOrters. There was nothingin it. He saiC
that his opponent had brought severa
stockholders of the Pacific Mail to supper
! him.
Eyes, but they represent great deal o
| stock" said Lawyer Lauterbach
''Do you mean to insinuate," asked Cou
dert, "thaJ the directors of the Panam,
Railroad company do not hold stock 2"
Yes, said Lauterbach, "the American
directors do not represent S."
! COudert denied that the Panama railway
was in possession of the French govern
ment. He said the reason why his ellen
would not renew his contract was because
the Pacific Mail company had refused t
pay $4,000 a month to the Panama rail
road for the good will Upon the conclus
| ion of Coudert's argument the case was pu
over until SATURDAY for the production o
| certain papers, after which Judge Ingra
ham will render his decision as soon al
possible.