The news & observer., 1897-04-24
RESTRAINING ORDER SIGNED BY
JUDGE ADAMS AT 1 O'CLOCK
THURSDAY NIGHT.
RETuRNABLE BEFORE JUDGE
TlMBERLAKE ON MAY 7TH.
The Simonton Injunction Sworn Out by
Private Ste :kholders to be Heard
at Ashesilae June 9th. All De-
peads on Whether Amend,
naents Have Been Made
to Charter Since
1888.

ly in North Carolina railroad circles
and yesterday a. new. one was added to the
list.
To the getting Of injunctions there
seems to be NO end, and 1T seems to be a
game at which more than one person can
play.
1t will be remembered that several
weeks ago Mr.. w. r. Tucker, of this
city, in behalf OF the private stockholders
Of the Atlantic and North Carolina Rail-
road, secured an order from Judge Simon
ton restraining the Governor from ap-
pointing a States proxy and the directors
from doing any Of the acts authorized in
the amendments to the charter passed by
the last Legislature. until their validity
can be tested.
This injunction is to be heard at Ashe
willie on June Sth, and the answer is now
being prepared
In the meantime, however, a meeting
Of the private stockholders has been call
ed at Goldsboro next Tuesday, for the
purpose of making certain changes in the
bylaws. To prevent this President Han
cock and the new directors have chosen
their opponents own weapons to fight
them with and late yesterday afternoon
had restraining order served on them.
Spencer B. Adams who is now holding
court here, about 1 o'clock yesterday
morning, on application of Hon. G. B.
Aycock, attorney. This order restrains
w. r. Tucker and other stockholders in
the Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad
Company, from holding meeting of the
stockholders at Goldsboro on April q,
without permission Of the court, until
May Z, '97, when the defendants are to
appear before Hon. E. W. Timberlake,
judge of Superior court, and show cause
why the restraining order shall not be
continued till the hearing.
The injunction is granted upon the ap-
plication of the State of North Carolina,
the Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad
and the counties Of Craven, Lenoir and
PamlicO, stockholders in said road, and
is based ON the allegation that w. R,
Tucker aud others, the defendants in this
case, have procured from the Federal
court an order restraining the Governor
from appointing States proxy and
thereby have prevented the participation
of the State. which owns two-thirds of
the stock in the Atlantic and North Caro-
lima Railroad from being present and par
ticipating in said meeting and 1T would
be manifestly inequitable to allow
small minority of the stockholders to leg
islate for the road when the majority
stockholders are restrained from being
present.
The charter of the Atlantic and North
Carolina Railroad provides a scale of
voting by means of which the large stock
holders are kept from casting vote
greater than the number provided in the
charter. The State having 1856 and
having only $50 votes, it is alleged. l am
informed, in the bill, that the defendants,
holding large blocks of stock, have un-
lawfully split up their stock and claim
the right to have the votes cast according
to the split up stock and not as held in
bulk, which it is alleged, is a grievous
injury to the State and the counties,
since they are unable to split their stock
and can only cast the number of votes
provided in the charter.
1t is further claimed that the bylaws
passed by the stockholders at the meeting
in Goldsboro some time in December last,
attempting to take the control OF the
road out of the hands of the directors,
is void, as being in cOntrayention of the
charter, which gives the State eight di-
rectors out of twelve in exchange for the
State surrendering the larger part of ats
vote in StOckhOlder meeung.
THE FIRST INJUNCTION.
The bill in the first case, that of Tuck
ct against the Atlantic and North Caro-
lima Railroad Company, seems TO pro-
ceed on the theory that the acts OF the
recent Legislature in reference to that
company impairs the obligation OF the
States contract embraced in the charter
and therefore the suit is suit orlglnat-
ing under the Constitution Of the United
States and so the Federal court has jur-
isdiction. The great Dartmouth col
lege case settled the principle that the
charter is a contract though many iaw-
yers and courts have thought it was an
unfortunate decision in that respect.
Whether the plaintiff can maintain has ac-
ton depends upon the question whether
the charter should now be considered a
charter granted prior to the Constitution
Of 1868 or subsequent to that time.
BY the terms of that Constitution all
subsequent charters are subject to amend
ment or repeal whereas all prior charters
are protected by the United States Con-
stitution from interference under the
principle OF the Dartmouth college case.