The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-07-21
BATTLE OF GIANTS.
Progress of the Argument
in the Great Read
ing-Centra1 Suit.
COMBINATION AND CONTRACT
No Court Has the Right to
Break a Bargain-John
R. Emery's Plea.
SOME RAILWAY GEOGRAPHY
Attorney General Stocklon's Able
Argument for the
State.
SOME RAILWAY GEOGRAPHY
speeial to tAe Jersey ctr Ms,es.

special to the Jersey Cits Netrs.
TRENTON, July 81. 1S92.-When Mr..
Johu G. johnson. of Philadelphia. had
concluded his argument In favor of the
Reading Lease sent TO The NEWS by
wire yesterday. Mr.. Tho mas N. Mc-
Carter made q long adore IS on the same
side.
John r. Emery, Of Newark. then be-
gan his argument for the railroads. as to
the nature of the equitable claim for re-
lief upon which the Information wa fur
nished. He said the case was q new II
in The courts of equity of New Jersey,
not only In the instance, but also in prin-
cipai. The theory upo which the DILL Is
based can be best ascertained from the
prayer for relief. the relief prayed, he
SAID, Is directed to three objects.
First. 10 set aside as ultra wires. fraud
ulent and void. the lease and tripartite
agreement aud any otner agreements
executed in pursuance of the combina-
ton to control the price of coal set up In
the bill. A
Second. To restrain the Philadelphia
aud Reading and the Port Reading Com
Panles from operating the roads of the
Central Company, and to require them to
surrender the possession Of these roads to
the Central Company.
Third. That the companies may be re-
strained from all combinations artifically
Increasing the price OF coal TO the inhabi-
tants of New Jersey.
As to the right to set aside contracts, he
said, there can be no jurisdiction for this
purpose in u court, except in a suit be-
tween the parties who executed the con-
tracts Tor those claiming under their
rights, and in a snit between them for
that purpose. As to the right to restrain
the Philadelphia I'M Reading or the Port
pnaAfn~ rrnr1a avAurfcf.- n O.AAhteo. -
the Central Railroad Company, this suit
is virtually a proceeding TO GUST them
from the exercise of such franchise; aud
hitherto, the sole remedy for such pur-
pose has been a proceeding in the Su-
preme Court from custer from the fran
ehiSe.
RIGHT OF COMBINATIONS.
As to the right TO restrain from combi-
nations. neither a court Of equity nor any
other court has Jurisdiction for tue nur-
pose of esta blishing a law or rule of con-
uuct in the future for tie government of
the defendant corporation. The only
jurisdiction of any court. either at law or
equity. is that OF deciding upon the
validity of any particular contract or
agreement proved.
II the Attorney General establish es in
this case. to the satisfaction of the Court.
that the Port Reading has no right to
operate the Central Railroad, aud that
tiAo oV Al L6i60 LACu
the Court may make a decree restraining
its operation of the road; but can iG go
further and decree that the lease Is ultra
wires, ~purporting to operate on the con-
tract Itself by action Of the State?
II submit" he continued, ''that merely
for tbs purpose of setting aside an act as
ultra wires, of the company, there can be
no jurisdiction in equity uS the suit of
the Attorney General, and that no cases
can be found, either in Sew Jersey or
elsewhere, to sustain such jurisdiction"
Il ATTORNEY GENERAL'sARGUMENT.
At the close OF Mr.. Emery's argument
Attorney General Stockton aross and be-,
gan his argument for the State. He said:
MAY 1t please the Court-As / wish to
present the case to the Court IN the time
allotted to me. | must proceed in order
and state to the Court the points GU which
Ishall Insist. am pleased to tiud that no
point has been made by our opponents
which l have not considered, and which
is not answ cred by the brief which I have
prepared. When l state my points it
would seem as II the brief had been pre-
pared since the argument. for IL answers
every point that has been brought for
wa'd by the defendants.
"There Is no demurrer put into this in
formation. think there ought to bave
been, IL any portion OF the last part of the
argument OF the gentlemen wh0 have Just
recently spoken has any foundation In
law. Ii 1t be true that this Court has no
1nrisdiction-if 1t be even plausible that
this Court has no jurisdiction-is 1t pos
sible tfat Chancellor Williamson, Mr..
McCarter, Mr.. De Forrest, Mr.. Emery.
MI. johnson, Mr.. Hart and Mr.. Dickson
q hope / have omitted. none)-is it pos
sible that they were not awar4 of the fact
that a point of jurisdiction should be made
at the threshold, and the attention of the
Court called co that fact? Or, IL
it be true that the Attorney Cen
eral of New Jersey has no power
IN a case like this to call the atten-
ton of the Court TO the wrong which is
New Jersey; and the Court has no power
TO listen to it. If this BIZ true, would not
1t have been in accordance with the pro-
fe' slonai propriety. and with presidents,
10 have called the attention of the At
torney-General to the fact, aud to have
npprised the Court, because, II the Court
has no jurisdiction. 1t eau do nothing to
prevent the wrong. which must 30 on, no
matter what injnFY is being done to the
public. Can 1t be true thai there Is no
power in the State OF New Jersey to stop
sucn actsf Is II true that The Attorney-
General has no power in such csSes? Is
IT true that the Court Of Chancery has no
Jurisdiction? Look 1T that map.
RAILWAY FACTS.
MAY it please your Honor, that upper
Hut Is the Central Railroad of New jer-
eey Uhe green ltneli Cne next line cross
ing New Jersey, from shore to shore, Is
the Easton aad Amboy, owned by the
Lehigh Valley and leased by them to the
Philadelphia and Reading; the next is
the line of the Philadelphia aud Reading
Railroad, called the Delaware and Bound
Brook tia ilroad. That small vermilion
line there is the Port Reading Railroad.
The Central Railroad Company of New