The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-01-13
THE GREAT DECISION.
Full Text of Chancellor
McGi1l's Opinion in the
Coal Combine Suit,
POWER HELD In RESERVE
Facts Shown By the Evidence
The Courts Powers
Defined.


the suit against the Jersey Central Rail-
road receivership was placed on file yes
terday in the office Of the CLERK of Chan
Gerry. The Chancellor recites the history
of the suit and the contention of the State
and the answer of the corporations. and
then delivers this direct oplnion;-
In my former opinion in this case
declared that for the substantial purposes
of injury to the public by com bination to
sti6e competition aud the Attorney Cen
erai's suit to defeat such combination,
the defendants are to be regarded In
equity as the owners of the coal mines;
not as holders of the legal title, but as
having substantial control OF the cor
porate entities which hold that title.
1t was made quite apparent TO me that
the relation of the coal companies to the
railroad companies is such that the same
minds and wills which dictate the policy
Of railroads, and decide what they
shall and what they shall not
DO. also. ia virtue OF the power
given by the ownership Of majority
of the stock of the two coal COM
pRnie4 which is the property OF the de-
PENDANTS, dictate the policy and control
the conduct of the coal companies; that
the defendant railroad corporations and
the two coal companies are. in short,
guided, dominated and controlled BY
preliseiy the same governing power.
THE AGREEMENT.
The terms of the agreement or the 30th
of April, between the coal companies,
coupled with proof Of the ownership OF
the capital stock OF those companies,
and the fact that the executive officers
of the railroad and coal compan-
les were and are the same persons.
afford reliable ground for inference, II
not presumption, that this condition OF
affairs exists. The agreement was not
only execu ed by the presidents OF the
railroad compauies. VINO were also presl-
dents OF the coal companies, but It's re-
citals expressly declared that shipments
of cJal by the Lehigh and W1lkesbarre
Company were TO be over the rail-
rouds of the system belonging to
the owner of the majority OF It's capital
stock. and not over railroads which would
offer the most advantageous facilities and
the lowest prices for Its transportation.
1t was also predlcated upon lease be-
tween the defendants, and was termfn-
able with the annuiment of that lease. Ii
participated in the scheme OF the rail-
road companies to lessen and destroy
competition and increase the price OF
Coal, III that it made provision for share
in the profits of the execution OF that
scheme by fixing percentage OF the
proceeds OF sale rs the price to be paid.
from time TO time, for its output.
aud IN that it insured enhanced prices.
hveries Il. at any time, the
prices realized should not pay reasonable
royalties and the cost OF mining, and in
that it submitted TO restriction of the
output of the Lehigh and Wtikesbarre
Company, so that iG should correspond
with the output from the collieries OF The
vendee. thus enabling the latter to con-
troll the market supply,
PROFESSIONS OF OBEDIENCE.
1t was thus made to appear that the
sama individuals who controlled the
5Qy nj n virfna
of The power which properties of The en-
Joined companies give them. controlled
other corporations whose life Is repre-
scented by those properlsies and used
them to accomplish the very
ends against which the injunctions are
aimed. These individuals professed re-
soec5 aud obedience to the injunctioDs by
causing the Central Railroad Company of
New Jersey TO resume possession OF Its,
tangible properly. but hey failed 10 ter
inmate the agreemen which tney nao
3 made through the power which the In
tangible property OF that company gave
them and which most effectually nulli-
fed the efficiency of these fnjunctions.
At this point the inquiry presented
itself whether the proofs were suucient
to establish that the defendants. since the
issuance of the iniunctions. have pos
sesseu the power to terminate the agree
ment between the coal companies, and
convict them of breach of the 1nJunc-
tions. IG has now become neces-
sary to discuss this question because
since the hearing. has been agreed be-
tween the counsel for the Central Rail-
road Company and the Attorney General.
and has 10y them jointly been represented
TO me, that the aggreement between the
coal companies has been terminated 1.-The
instance of the Central Il. Il. Co. This
representation has two-fold significance.
Il, in the first place. satisfies ME That the
Central Railroad Company did not exert
its entire power to secure obedience TO the
injunction before the supplementary in
formation was filed, and, III the second
place. it eyinces disposition on the part
of tnat company to now render complete
obedience to the Courts writ
THE DEFENDANTS POWER.
Whatever difficulty have had in this
application has been with the question as
to the defendants power to fully obey the
injunction In face OF the agreement
between the coal companies. l have
not for q moment doubted the
power of this Court, where neces-
sary to prevent the property of a
defendant from use in the contrivance of
and thereby defeat its injunction to take
coutroi of tnat property through the in
strumentality of receiver. Indeed, the
power OF the Court to appoint such
receiver, when the appointment
IS necessary to effectuate Its decree.
is 20 essential at times 10 the efficient
exercise of the Courts jurisdiction.
that it has become too well established
either to be seriously questioned or to
need citation OF authority to support it,
Out of consideration for property rights
II is sparipgly and cautiously exercised.
but when execution of decree depends
upon its exercise the Court Will most GER
Lainly use it to the full extent that the
exlgencies of the case demand.
per- ceiye go necessity for the appoint
nent of a receiver in this case as it now
stands upon the assurance of counsel,
but, in order that the Court may
be completely and particularly in
formed touching the obedience to
it's Injunction, Will refer it to a Master.
10 Inquire whether Il the ss,tdp in'uneIiGn ans IN
now being 9oeyea s ~ 1eesT 70 ana sead
FOR. and examine the officers, agents,
books and papers of the defendants.
Further order in the premises will be
reserved until the coming in OF his re-
port.
JERSEY CENTRAL'S CASE.