The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-12-08
rgr pAxhmA RAILROAD CASE
Argument on Paeiac Maiis Motion for .
Permanent 1niunction.

Permanent 1nIunction.
Justice In graham OF the Suprem Court heard
ar0un emit yesterday on a motion OF the Pacific
Mail Steamship Company to mako permanent
the tenn porary Injunction preventing the Pana-
ma Railroad Company from transferring us
steamship business to Cha. Sud Americana de
yapores. known as tho Gillian line. or any ono
else than the plaintiff. Congressman Frank
lin bartlett. Edward Iauterbach. and ex-Gov.
Hoadly appeared for tho motion. which was
opposed by Frederic r. Coudert.
In opening the argument Mr.. Lauterbach
caye n history OF the relations between the
Pacific Mail Steamship Company ard tho
Panama Railroad Company. Tho steamship
limo was incorporated in 1S4o. and has estab-
lished a large business between hero ana tho
Isthmus and in the Pacific, In lsI. 1t made !,
nm agreement with the defendant Whereby "
purchased Ave stea m hips from the defendant
s ship 'f Business ' and covenant that The de.
PENDANT would not directly or ihdirectiy en-
ksss ,ns Sad paid Il
the agreement provided that the plaint,tn
could give through bills q adlIi eyer ,h h dne
iSndant has announced It will no longer per.
nit. II has also made arrangements IN viola.
its steamship business to the Chilian line A..
that nv % tSs F 2, esS
Panama Canal Company. which Is insolyrhnt.
He referred at length to the treaty made oe,
tween the l nlted States anu NeW " ~
roe doctrine applied to the Isthmus. He said
IL would be a violation OF this doctrine to nave
the French Governmen t. through the Panama
Railroad. also indirectly secure the steamship
Mr.. Coudert said the Monroe doctrine had
nothing to do with the case and had been
brought in for effect An agreement had been
made in 1878 which expires next Feer m
Ivy which the plaintiff agreed to Giva SnSooW,a
had been anxious to renew this agreement.
but the plaintiff declined to continue the ray.
ment. Tho defendant had therafore hau 20
transfer its business to some one VINO wouiu
pay for the privilege. cal,
Justice lnsruham. by giving the rlaintir the
same privileges you give to others
Mr.. toudcrt thought his company SHOULD he
paid for its privileges. and that II could WIN.
hold them, from th2se who would not PAY sy;;rt;Ne
which hns an adequate remedy at law ~ Gam,
aEes. cannot therefore have an INJUNCTION. ~
the defendant was bound to give the paintiitt
these privileges exclusively the defendant
would lie bound up and the plaintin wouio DO
it's MASTER " .,,,
Justice Ingraham said the words exclusive
privileges we're not in the agreement
Mr. bartlett said that although the deiend-
ant was in the control OF foreigners and the
Monroe doctrine was properly set UP in the
ease, lie held the injunction should be granted
II tho facts were viewed as between two DO
nestle companies. 1t should issue because
the defendant was threatening to concern
itself with steamship business. because 1t MAJ
had threatened to cut on the steamship bnsi-
ness Of the plaintiff. all in violation o. the con-
tract. The contract meant to give these priv
ileges to the plaintiff for all time, ana gave
GOOD GOOD viii viii Of the stennsi hip business.
Decision WAS reserved.