New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-05-02
THE READING "CoMBINE" ANSWERS.
SEPARATE P1EADINGs OF THE COMPANIES II
THE PENNSYLVANIA SUIT.

SEPARATE P1EADINGs OF THE COMPANIES IN
THB PENNSYLVANIA SUIT.
Harrisburg, Penn, May lin the suit against the
90 called Reading combine the Philadelphia and Read
Ing Railroad Company has submitted q separate
answer and demurrer setting forth In detail all the
railroads and branches owned controlled by 1t IN
Pennsylvania and also the roads and branches owned
or controlled by the ehIgh Valley Railroad Company
and denying emphaticay that these two systems are
parallel and competing within the meaning OF the
constitution Of Pennsylvania. The leasing OF the
Iehigh Valley lines by the Reading is admitted. but
the answer claims that the agreement was distinctly
authorized by the charters Of the two companies and
that It Is not in any way In conflict with the con-
stitutlon and laws Of Pennsylvania. The answer ad-
mits that the Port Reading Railroad Company, cor
poraton OF New Jersey, has lensed the Central Rail
road of NewJersey. but denies that the Philadelphia
and Reading owns the whole or majority
Of the capital stock Of the Port Reading;
but on the contrary that the entire stock OF that
company Is held by construction company and that
the lease Is fully authorized by the laws OF New
Jersey, where the respective parties thereto are located
The company demurs to sundry allegations, particularly
as to the relations OF the Philadelphia and Reading
Coal and Iron Company tho Leligh Valley Coal Com
pany and the Lehigh and Wilkesbarre Coal Company
cOntendng that, even II all the Attorney -dcneniis
allegations were true. they nevertheless do not con
stitute any violation Of law or public policy.
The separate answer ana demurrer OF TIE LeWeh
Valley Railroad Company is substantially the same as
that Of the Reading The demurrer Of the Leigh Val
ley Coal Company denies that there are any matters
or things alleged In the Attorney Generals bill! which,
even II true, constitute any just or lawful cause OF
complaint against this defendant. The Philadelphia
and Reading Coal Company filed a similar demurrer
The Port Reading Railroad Company files separate
answer stating that 1t Is q corporation OF New
Jersey ut it's railroad is within that State that it,
capital stock is not the property Of the Philadelphia
and Reading. but Is owned by construction company,
and that its officers and agents in way under
the direction control Of the philadelphia and Read
Ing except from community OF interest they are
may be willing to conduct the operations OF The
two comparies In harmony; but the two corpora
tons are. In law, separate, independent and distinct
The lease Of the Central Railroad Company OF New
Jersey declared to be valid. lawful and subssting
contract between two corporations Of the State OF New
Jersey which cannot In infringe or violate
the constitution Of the State Of Pennsylvania. nor In
any manner be controlled or affected thereby"
A separate answer for tho Lehlgh Coal and Nav1ga-
ton Company admits that 1t owns the Lehigh and
Susquehanna Railroad, which is leased to the Central
New jersey, but denies that II was party 10 the
agreement whereby that road leased to the Port
Reading plea Is entered for the Lehigh and Wilkes
barre Coal Company, denying that the Reading has
leased or acquired control OF its mines, coeres etc
The papers will be filed with the court morrow