New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-08-02
THE READING COMBINATION.
MOTION EOR A RECEIVER FOR THE LIE
HIGH VALLEY DENIED.

| A PENNSYLVANIA COURT REFUSES TO ENJoIN
| THE LEASE OF THE LATTER CORPORATION
| Easton, Penn Aug. LIN the Northampton County
Court this morning opinion was handed down IN
relation TO the Philadelphia and Reading and Lchigh
Valley Railroad deal. II was In part a. follows:
| This is motion for a receiver foT the Lehgh Valley
| Railroad Company, and for preliminary injuncuon;;
| The motion for receiver IS based on number Of
Of Hc Lesh e yaey Railroad Company are engaged
In conspiracy TO ruin that company IN the interest
As night be expected from The high character Of the
gentlemen concerned. aside from the Inherent absnrdy
denied.
The present controversy Is the Outgrowb Of lease
by the directors Of the Lehgh Valley Railroad Com
pany Of that companys properly, intending al Its
ton, to tie PhadeIphia and Reading Railroad Com,
The Of the vain no v a
the ordinary management Of the company, and there,
fore not within the powers OF the directors TO make
planans allcge, the lines Of the Lehgh Valley and
| the Philadelphia and Reading Railroads were, at the
fore the lease was in violation of Article IL, section
OF the Constitution, which provides that no railroad
chises In any way control any other railroad cor
poration owning or having under It's control par
adelpha and Reading Railroad Company entered at
once into possession Of Its newly acquired property
Of II ever since Against this condition OF things the
complannn :, who are stockholders in the Lehigh
d Sss H HAT fSS s and READING
Company deliver over and surrender TO the Lc-
nsn sHsy the aiIS Se iRe h"ans the
pl3lnants modified their praycr and we are now now
and Reading Railroad company from the ior,hss
1S ana a %e Of Ge p Se4re WITH
the possession Of the PSrCpep Hnsn wSna @
fSp' merely to rSaSPsSa " c%%pHn
from using the property. 1t IS plain that such an
I bio PHILADELPHIA
and Reading Railroad Company. We have no right
to issue preliminary injunction under such cir
Recurring to the question as to the validity Of
the leoSe h question resolves se mo S '% Srs %c
o. their own motion to make the eHsei and second
compcnsS Are the fchsh valley and The R IIl
putaby parallel or competing within the prohIbi
lion Of the Constitution that we ought at once 70
roads fall within the constitutional prohibition is a
say that it will be set at rest only atSr The mos,
exhaustive argument and the most deliberate rate and
comes the question of fact. which 1t would be simply
reckless to decide Of the evidence before oDt u.s.
the result Of an unlawful combination and con,
pcy to create monopoly n The he P G nn SH,S SIS
the relevancy Of this alienation bit u Is eionsn
to say that n sr y, not sRqSd OF oy 10 @h
a combination The Lehigh Valley knsc was the first
step In what Will pass INTO history as tHc Srtht
Reading deal" which wa. consumma,ed the following
day by the acquisition Of n Ike case from nc Cen
lral Railroad Company OF Ncw-JcrScy. Whatever
purpose In the mind Of ths Reading directors when
they acquired the Lehgh Valley lease. We discover
no evidence that the Ielgh Valley dccHs par1lci-
patcd In or even knew Of that purpose These TWO
allegations, therefore, may be dismissed without iur
1t is one OF Inc pcculariues Of the case at bar
that the lease which IS the binder Of the compainants
positive benefit 70 them; on this point We have In
The first place. thr ahdnvits az the directors 81 the
I.ihch Valley Railroad Company gentlemen who have
liberal and Intelligent MANAGEMENT that company
has taken It's place in The front q, ra ihs
a n;, gentlemen T in position to know with
conceivable motive for deception, themselves among
the heaviest stockholders. al Of whom With one voice
say thai In their opinion ne eSc rs o ana p NIL os
Company and I'm this connection II Is Significant that
all The Stockholders OF the company, aS far as heard
plaInants and a Mr.. Arnot. who together own but I'D
shares OF stock Of grand total Of 100000 shares
still nihcr. II Is nearly siN months since INC
made. and the stock has steadily advanced IN
price since and T. still advancing Here then we
have tho anomaly OF set q compliments without
grievance asserting doubtful right and ASKING ftr
am Injunction tina; would them good, while IT
would work tncalclablr Injury. not only 10 the De
PENDANTS but TO the pnhc y hn In'err E a., o.
ing ;, .rm To grant mn injunction under such cir.
cmsianrcS would be 10 invite revolution or rather,
Void be- 10 innugrtc revolution by ourselves leading
.. way ln showing contempt for tho authority Of the
law Tho present motion must therefore BE- dismissed
As has already been stated, the bill before US mas
hccn h bv private parties for their own p1va" enos
and tho equities alone are I'm the balance II the pub.
liz ha, any lights they can De- asserted only In BILL
nlcd bv Tho Attorney General I'm the name Of the com
oinrt 81 Common Pleas ~ Daupha County, and II Is
a consola'lon 20 know that In nc hands OF ne very
Able Judges Of that court the rights Of The public VIII
not .nncr II ,hond turn out that the public has
any rights Ia the matter.