Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1900-01-11

porating the complainant, which pro-
vides only for steam and horse power,
electricity as a motive power for street
railways was in 1864 unknown, and
therefore not in, contemplation by the
Legislature
That, even IL such exclusive right
had beeu given to the complainant as
claimed by 1T, it has from time to time
acquiesced in the construction and
operation of other, city railways, and is
now in fact engaged in the operation
of other such CITY railways, and taking
advantage of the grants contained in
the charter Of such roads.
That the defendant is In all respects
authorized by its charter TO do the
things complained of ...
That only the state of Delaware,
acting through the proper officer, can
complain il the defendant has in all
things complied with its charter.
That the complainant is estopped by
its contract under seal with the de-
fendant from denying its corporate
existence it45f
That the crossing of the tracks of
the complainant by the defendant is
authorized by DESCENDANTS charter,
is a matter of which the complainant
cannot avail itself in this or any other
proceeding.
That this defendant was unable, by
contract or otherwise, to part with its
franchise or agree not to exercise it.
That even If the contract SO to do
of the complainant is at law, and not
in equity
Col Benjamin Nields occupied the
greater part OF Saturdays session
of the Court Of Chancery in arguing
for the dismissal of the Injunction pro-
ceedings brought by the Wilmington
City Railway Co. to prevent the Will
mington & Brandywine Springs Rail
way Co. from bulldog trolley line
on Sixth street. Tho colonel laid down
these propositions:
BY tho terms of its charter, the
exclusive franchise" of the city rail-
way is confined to the streets named in
the charter.
compIainant's exclusive franchise
is to operate street railway; the re-
spondent is q county railway having
one of Its terminii In this city, and
could not impair the compliments
franchise. Fi..
The charter granted in 1864 only con-
temIlated the use Of horse and steam
power and the uourt 10 constituting
that, will not imply exclusive right to
use electricity; all rules of construction
being against monopolies, exclusive
franchises. - ~
No consent was ever given to the
complainant; it involved formal reso-
luton, and even il formal resolution
was passed; the Street and Sewer De-
partment, under the authority of the
compartments charter and the city
charter, had the power TO revoke it.
The power to revoke the exclusive
character of the compliments fran
chise was reserved by the Legislature,
and BY granting respondents charter,
it exercised the power to revoke that
exclusive charter, 60 far as the use
of Sixth street was concerned.
Consent was given to respondent and
denied to complainant and without
this consent, complainant has no
OF Sixth street for which an injunction
could he issued.
Mr.. Nieids concluded his argument
about IL. 10 o'clock, and was followed
by Willard Salisbury, representing the
city railway, who replied to the argu-
ments of Mr.. Nieids and William s.
HilIes.
Argument was concluded Saturday
afternoon in the Injunction suit of the
Wilmington City Railway 90. vs. the
Wilmington g. Brandywine Springs
Railway Co Whatever the decision of
Chancellor Nicholson In the case, 1t is
expected that the defeated party will
carry it to higher court and that it
will eventually reach the Supreme
| Court Of the United States,