Year: 1872

Argument Of Judge Shipman-The Com


structi0n Of the National Railroad


Cannot BE Prevented.


In the great railroad suit at Trenton, Mr.. Ship
man. on behalf OF the defendants, resumed
his argument yesterday morning. He first asked
The Court to consider the title the Pennsylvania
Railroad Company, as shown in the bill for injunc-
lion. He insisted that there was no evidence to
show that they had any status before this Court
that they were not entitled to the relief asked
Tor. lie further asked the Court TO con-
slider the position OF the united New
Jersey railroad companies, which would show that
they have no interest in considering the bill; if
they have any ut ALL their rights and interests are
entirely Diverse so that they cannot be united IN
pne bill. He insisted that these railroad compa-
nies, by the allegations in this bill, completely
wiped out; that they have claim for protection
until the expiration OF the thousand years save
One-one thousand years. why" said the
speaker, 1.-The imagination can't reach 1t. 1t
IL Quixotic case, which the Court can
not take into account" lie contended that IL
they have any interests, these interests are ad-
verse. Counsel cited numerous authorities to sus-
tain these views. 1t is the Pennsylvania Company
that ask for relief. There is place in the bill as
1t is framed where the united companies apply for
such relief or make any such claim. He then re-
serred to the answer which his clients had made to
She bill, and said that 1t denied the execution OF
the lease in its legality. The lease was void and it
did not give the Pennsylvania Company
any control. He contended that the an
deiendants declare and set down the invalidity OF
the lease. Admitting that there was a lease, he
insisted that II was not recorded in accordance
with the requirement of the act of 1872.


1t has not been seriously denied on the part OF
the compianants that tine lease IS Is % not void.
.ne beef for the cross:eyed butcher as an
piainants. The next point introduced by
Che counsel was in reference 10 the matter
set forth in the bill OF complaint. which, he says
does not authorize the Court to grant the bin Of
injunction Counsel referred to the rule laid
down by Chancellor Zabrskie, applicable to this
which he took up the decision In the Delaware Bay
case and reviewed II at great length. He said he
that he did fully agree with the learned Chief
Justice on all the points in that decision.


not involved in this case. The bill in that case
was filed entirely upon che idea that the defend.
ants were invading the rights, &c. OF the com.
carefully and understand 1t, and see what was in
! II. He explained the right man had to build
ggailroad on his own land, to run steam thereon
and travel over II. These were inalienable rights,
= which could not be taken away by implication
s~.;oonsel contended that nothing could be got sy
Tint is the reason he entered his protest against
sahe decision given and the ideas thrown out by the


lie asked, would this country be less liberal than
iNhat OF Great Britain in its institutionsS The latter


e@4eS mas ~ n tba I
authorizing the building OF the Chester and Holy
Gead Railroad Company, which, he said, was appli-
GaDe TO TINS case After citing other authorities be
stated that II was not necessary for his clients
that they should show survey route; II is enough
to show that they have got charters to construct
railroad 10 the city Of New York. Even II they
throw out this odious eighth section then there is
enough left to convey the meaning of the Legisla-
fng q n nd
examined there will be found that q good
many little railroads put together little char
ters so obtained and at last they came before the
Legislature and asked for consolidation and got IL,
GSich are now under the name Of the Midland Rail.