Year: 1869

ossduss he and the same is hereby deasd ,,,,.


SUPREME C0uaT-SPEciA TERM


Judge Barnard Ruies that the Decision of


JudSe BIaichfOrd is Mere Dicta.


James Flsh Jr,, as. The Union Pacific RdarOod
Cogrpdny.-When this case was called yesterday
morning Mr.. ID. d. Field OF counsel for the paintin
and said that the attachments for contempt
put over till to-day at the request OF the de-
PENDANTS themselves. He did not any OF them
In court. and he supposed they did not intend to
come. They thought perhaps because OF the opinion
given by Judge BatchOrd In the Circuit Court OF the
United States that they had better defy the State
court and take no further notice of it, II So he could
only say that they were at liberty 10 do so, but he
would certainly continue to proceed until there was
decision OF authority other than that already given.
He regretted very much the opinion of Judge Blatch.
ford for he could not regard 1t as decision any
further than 1t decided to deny motion for the stay
OF proceedings. Everything else was mere opinion.
This was even more iagrant of extra judicial
opinion than that OF the Dred Scott case which cre-
ated much excitement for when the court came to
the conclusion that it had not Jurisdiction it was
bound 10 stop, and everything that was said beyond
that was mere opinion In this case Judge Is asked
to make an order staying the plantlr from proceed
ing in the state court. He to the conclusion
he cannot do 1t. The Judge came to the conclusion
that II the case were in this court he had power
to stay the proceedings Yet after the case had been
argued in the State court he declared to be in the
Circuit Court OF the United States That being So
he (Mr. Fled) had no hesitation In saying that he
would report himself as under the order OF this court
and should obey throughout, no matter what opin-
Ion might be given anywhere else until there was a
decision by superior authority. He submitted that
such opinion would tend towards interfering with
judicial proceedings. while 1t marred the dignity OF
the court Ibis was case where the plantlfi could
not sue IN the United States court He was bound
to III The supreme Court but when he came there
Congress passed law to enable the defendants to
proceed as they had done. The defendants got that
law paseu os Tue oonS oi man VINO u was
that 0akes Ames was now member of Congress
and most pertinaceous In regard TO this Legislation.
1t seemed altogether 10 be ndelicate as anything
could possibly be- Now, after this, to say that the
hands OF the Judge OF the Supreme Court was para
lyzed was TO say that there was no longer that
cient supreme Court OF New York which we sup
posed our fathers had left When the State court
was thus paralvZed we were rapidly tending into
consolidated government and then liberties were
lost. Now, he hoped and he moved that this Court
anywhere else. II the defendants chose to prose
cute their appeal at the general term he was ready
TO 60 on WI WIN 1t; but % until unit, decision @ OF higher
ceed and dispose OF the case as II no opinion mad
been given.


JUDGE BARNARDs REMARKS
Judge Barnard then said:-I have read IN the news
papers SONS notes or there is full reporp of
the observations made by Justice Blatchford the
United States Circuit Court Tuesday upon the oc-
casion OF his denying the motion OF the defendants 10
stay the proceedings in this court.
These observations must be regarded as mere
dtcd, because so soon as he came 70 the conclusion
that he could not IN any event grant the order there
remained nothing else for him to decide | am re-
heved therefore from the necessity OF disregarding
an express decision OF so respectable Judge, though
candor requires to say that II such a decision had
been made upon the question OF removal fairly
raised, should still have adhered to my previous
delberation. Holding the special term OF the Su
preme Court OF the state OF New York. | have no
superior but the general term Of this court the Court
OF Appeals and the Supreme Court OF the
United States, TO whose decision | shall al
ways yield respectfuI obedience. and | shall
N mr. siffl hara am bonn m
maintain the authority OF the State and Of the
IN whlcn SIT, Mr.. JUSTICE Blatchford appears 70
in the courts OF tins state between piantiff anu
twenty iour defendants oi the defendants with
whole into the Circuit Court OF the United states
one OF the questions between the plaintin and the
moving defendant arises under federal laws though
every other question between these two and All the
questions between the paintln and the twentytnree
other defendants arose under state laws. do not
think Congress intended any such thing, and II II
had intended do not think tae constitution would
have warranted IT, Starting from this proposition,
the learned Judge thinks the petition OF this defend
ant (the Union Pacific Railroad Company was filed
In the Supreme Court and bond offered on the 7th
August. 1868, although the afidavit OF the defend
ants attorney states that the petition died on
the 18th March, 1869, and know positively not only
that bond was offered to me ON the 7th Of
August 1865 but that no bond has ever been
offered TO me at any time whatever, even TO this
day Whether therefore, ! consider the views Of
cannot concur or his assumptions Of fact which !
know to he erroneous, must decline 10 be governed





for It or Tor him. what makes TINS supposition Of
removal In August Of last year the more remarkable
Is that the defendants counsel themselves aDan-
doned II, they ever entertained u. They, well
as the palntifrs counsel, have taken great number
OF proceedings In the case IN this court since that
time. Even the Union Pacific Railroad Compan
claims 10 have presented another petition
considering the previous one, insufficient Other de.
PENDANTS presented third petition the last OF March,
and two OF the defendants, Oliver Ames aud Oakes
Ames, have further petition for removal now pend
Ing and set down for argument, as am told, for the
third Monday Of the present MONTH


All OF these proceedings In this court OF course
Incompatible with the present claim that the whole
error has been committed my part la any stage
OF this case II can easily be corrected on appeal and


invite the most careful examination OF all my acts
The defendants have suffered nothing but from
their contumacy and refusal TO allow the transac-
tons OF the Two companies concerned to be
made known. In July Of last year an in
junction was granted prohibiting the removal
books ana property then within It, n rightly un.
derstand the AFFIDAVIT used on Tuesday. the defend
ants now avow that they now removed a great
portion OF the property for the very purpose OF
avoiding receiver The companys officers and
clerks have concealed themselves kept out OF the
way Ham shut himself up IN the SAFE Under all
the circumstances | have no means of asserting
pointing and continuing receiver. ] have, fur
ther, only 10 say, that II the defendants desire 10
take further evidence to their alleged contempt,
they may have q reference 10 do II they do not
desire II shall proceed with the case.


Mr.. Field then moved that the matter stand over
for final judgment till the 22d inst.


The application was granted and the court ad-
INN