It 1I .1 ' :f ilk ft JJ : K THE BLESSINGS OF GOVERNMENT, LIKE THE DEWS OF HEAVEN, SHOULD BE DiSTEIBTJTED ALIKE UPON THE HIGH AND THE LOW, THE RICH AND THE POOR. WW" V. JT '-!(!. X H If i I FJ III NEW SERIES. la published every Wednesday Morning at One Dollar and Fifty Cents per annum payable In advance ; ' ONE DOLLAR AND SEVENTY-FIVE CTS. - If not paid within six months, and TWO DOLLARS If not paid until the termination of the year. No subscription will bo taken for a shorter period than six raontts. and no sul scribcr will bo at liberty to discontinue Lis paper until all ar rearages" are paid, except at the option ot the - editor. Any person subscribing for mx months will be charged OSE dollar, unless the money u paid ( .la advance. : - . - Advertising Rates. One insert'n. 2co do. Three do. 1 square, 12 lines $ CO $ 75 $100 ' 2 square. 24 lineal 1 00 1 00 2 00 3 aquarw, SO lines 1 0 1 00 8 00 Z mouths. G do. 12 do. : 8 lines or less. $1 CO $3 00 $5 CO 1 square. 12 lir.es 2 60 4 .0 9 00 2 square, 1 24 lints 4 00 7 00 12 00 R squares. 36 lines C 00 9 00 14 00 Half a column, 10 CO 12 00 0 CO 'One column. 15 00 22 00 S5 00 All advertisement: must be marked with the number of insertions desired, or they will be continued until forbid, and charged accordingly. From the Pennsylvania Inquirer. APPLICATION TO RESTRAIN THE SALE OF THE KAIN LINE. Wkdnesday, Jcxe 17. Scpfrme Court. Chief Justice Lewis, and Justices Lowrie, Woodward, Knox and Arm strong. The case of II. S Mott.ctal.vs The Penn sylvania Railroad, Tho Governor of Penn sylvania et al, an application for an injunction was argued yesterday. Mr. V. L. Hirst opened tho argument in behalf of respond ents He said there arc on the files of the Court, three bills in equity, two of which it was proposed to argue to-diy. The first till I filed by one of tho Cantd Commissioners, another at the instauce of a stockholder and incorporator of the Pennsylvania Railroad Coinrny, and a third filed by a loan-holder, iht county of Allegheny on behalf of 20.000 shares of stifck. In reference to tha first till filed by the Ca nal Commissioner, a question of interest ari ses involving ttouie of the first principles of a republican government It is provided in one " of the sections of that bill .that the Pennsyl vania Railroad Company shall be discharged from al! taxation on its espital stork, bonds. ' dividends, and property. If the Legislature can sell to ono co. p rtioi), with an exemption ' f taxation, it can sell to any corporation, cit iiena or municipality. This was the fair and legitimate copj of the constitutional question now before thrf Court. It was instituting a privileged class to be exempted from sharing tie common burdens of this Common wealth, j Tbe-ro is involved in this casc the question concerning the universal right of thi Legis lature to sell exemptions to last forever. It was Hubmitted that the Legislature havo no power to make such contracts. The clause j in the Constitution, uuder which this act is pasee-d, is found in the first article of the Con-j ttitution. granting legislative power. The i Laturo of this power is a trust. The sover eignty of tha Slate is in the people, which is manifested by tho Constitution itsidf. This principle U well nettled hy federal and State adjudications. This trust is to be executed like any other trust j Mr. lirnt then referred to judicial de6ni- j tions of taxation. Government presupposes I the power of taxation, for no government co'd exist without it ; it is a power vital to the ex istence of the government, which cannot be relinquished. There is a constitutional defi nition of the word taxation in the 20th sec tion of the first article of the Constitution of this State, providing that bills for raising rev enue shall origiuato in the House of Repre sentatives, and also the section providing that r.0 money shall bo withdrawn from the Treas ury unlets by appropriation by law. If tho Legislature use the funds for any other pur pose than those granted by tho provisions of t!ha Consticatton tho Suprcaio Court will retrain them. These are rules of construction which gov ern Courts and the Court will construes the Constitution " like any other instrument. It Jias been decided that no one Legislature can control the future acts of another. The de cision of the Supreme Court of this State es tablish and confirm the proposition that taxa tion is incident to sovereignly. Such power hould be used with moderation; it should be equal and universal; there should be no ex emption or relinquishment. The exemption , of a few imposes a heavier burden on the rc Suaiuder. Taxation being a modo of raising revenue should be just and equal This is a tnaxim established by all elementary writers. TThe Legislature have no more power to em barrass the right of taxation than they have to embarrass the right of the people to elect Iheir own representatives. Should the Leg islature to permitted to sell exemption of tax ation dd libitum, in times of emergency fucU its an invasion, we would be utterly powerless for means. It is a dangerous power to invest In any body of legislators, no matter how vir tuous. It is asserted by the respondents that the Supreme Court of the United States have affirmed this power. Mr, Hirst pronounced this nol to be eo, that as yet the question was an open one. then proceeded to show by a synopsis n analysis of the adjudicated esses by the Federal Supreme Court, that his proposition was correct, and questioned the binding force of these decisions upon our State Courts. He then proceeded to discu?s the merits of the bill filed bv a eomorator nnd Btrulrhfddir ailing that U diceeuts from such a rraDsae- j tion; and that the Company have no power or authority to embark in it without his consent. Mr.' Hirst proceeded to read tho Act of Assembly in its various provisions in relation to the saleof the Main Line, maintaining that the Legislature mieht as well have con ferred the power of selling tho road Vpton a mere auctioneer as the Governor, and that the provision of the act confiscating the stock of a stockholder, by reason of hufdissent.was unconstitutional; that 'the Company had the corporate right under their charter to coerce a minority"; their charter and the stock of the stockholders were inviolable; that the limita tions in the charter denies to the Company the right to embark in this enterprise. These propiobitions were supported by a number of authorities oT he Federal and State Courts. Mr. .Campbel followed in behalf of the de fendants. 'The" first questionTbrr considera tion was Will the Court grant a special in junction to prohibit obcdienJc to an act of Assembly upon the application of such par tics, or upon such a case as is made by either bill ? In regard to the right of the respec tive parties asking the intervention of the Court, he said that the Canal Commissioners ts such, arc not entitled "to relief, having no property or interest in the works to be sold, but are ouy the puperintendants to guard the property of the Commonwealth and to obey her commands. They can have no relief as tax-payers, for they do not aver that their taxes will be augmented by tho sale. The stockholder is not entitled to a special injunc tion, because the ects Complained of are not in violation of, but in obedience to the law ; because he has intruded himself into the cor poration for the purpose of creating litigation aud preventing the acceptance of the law. Ho Can suffer no such icjury as entitles him to the summary re'ief sought Ms interest is insignificant aud indemnity is tendered him. The tills presented purport to be for the pur pose of preventing the sale, but are really to restraiu competition. No person, by purcha sing stock, pending the grant of powers to a quasi public corporation, can to entitled to a special injunction prohibiting the use of such extended authority, and deprive the people of advantage's designed to bo secured by such legislation. Mr. C said tho complainants maintain that there can be no substantial change in, or ex tension of power granted to a railroad com pany without the unanimous consent of every stockholder. The defendants are great com panies, created to maintain and promote the policy of tho State, t"6 extend her trade and to form improved highways for the transpor tation of pasjwners, mails and traffic, upon which every citizen is entitled to place a ve hicle to be transported, are not to fall within the same narrow rults of law as are maintain with reference to corporations in their nature exclusively private, and maintained solely for individual profit, That these great companies arc to bo re garded aa qunj-i public corporations, with powers conferred for the publio good, and in to which every si. ari-holdcr who enters does so with the full knowledge that their powers and privileges may be, from time to time, ex tended as the public' necessities may require That with reference to corj orations of this class, upon whom is cast the discharge of pub lic duties a well as the protection of private interests, the action of a majority of the stock holders in accepting an additional privilege conferred by the Legislature, will bind the corporation, not to the cxtent.of compelling a dissentient shareholder to enter into the ad venture sanctioned by law; but to allow him the' option cither to have his interests control led by the majority of his associate?, or to withdraw from the corporation, and his pe cuniary interest ascertained, paid or secured. That any other rule would enable a single shareholder of the rival works of other States to prevent the Commonwealth of Pennsylva nia from uing, for purposes which were cJn sistent with her policy and her interests, cor porations wore created by her and would ren der unavailable the associated capital of the State to accomplish any beneficial object she might have in interview. The Commonwealth has before parted with her property for iustance, tho Erie Railroad, the Franklin Canal, and she offered to give away tho North Uranch Canal, but no one would have it. The people, those who make the machines hum, and the fields bloom, wish that the government should own as little as possible. ' Tho case is being conducted on the part of the complainants by Wm. L. Hirst, C. It. Ruckalew, James II Walton and Wm. M Meredith; on the part of respondents by St. George T Campbell, ' E M. Stanton, Attor ney General Franklin, and Theodore Cuylcr. Mr. Stanton will speak this morning. The following is the answer and protest of Gov. Pollock to the bill, together with his brief as one of the parties named in it : James Pollock, Governor of Pennsylvania, protesting against the jurisdiction of this court in the premises, and against the right of the complainants to be heard therein con cerning any of the matters and things in their said bill of complaint set forth, and reserving to himself all manner of exception' thereto, makes the following statement and protest : That the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is the owner of the public improvements and property described in the bill of complaint, And known as the Main Line of the public works : that the complainants are the Canal Commissioners of this Commonwealth: that they have hoi vested ' in them any portion of the supreme executive power thereof, but are ministerial agents,- having certain limited powers specially delegated to them by acts of Assembly, and entirely subject to the direc tion and control , of the-Legislature:. that so far from being, by virtue of their said office, nowr in possession of the Main Line of the publio works, and receiving the incomes and revenues thereof for the use of the State, as is charged in their said bill, they are not en- EBENSBURG, JUNE 24, 185TV titled to receive any portion of the said in-; comes and revenues ; but the same are paya ble of right into the State Treasury, and the legal possession of the said public works is in this Commonwealth. ' -T V . That by an act of Assembly, approved the 16th day of May, A. D. 1857, entitled ' an act for the sale of the Main Lino of the Pub lic Works," it is among other things made the duty of tho Governor to give public no tice of the time and place of sale, ana" to have offered at public sale the wholo Main Line of the public works, . in manner and form as in the said act is1 prestTibed. That the said act, so far as this affiant knows or is informed and believes, was le gitimate and constitutional exercise of the legislative power, and was passed in pursu ance of a policy deliberately adopted by the Legislature and sanctioned by the people ; as expressly declared by popular vote and by repeated acts of legislation : and .'that this affiant, in discharge of the executive duty imposed upon him as Governor of tnis Com monwealth, has advertised the said Main Line of the public works for sale: that it is his design and purpos'e in all respects to per form the duties imposed upon him, and to comply with and obey the said act of Assem bly : and he denies the right or the power of this court to obstruct or interfere with him in the exercise of his functions as supreme ex ecutive officer of this Commonwealth. James Pollock, Governor of Pensylvania. Sworn and subscribed this 15th day of June, A. D., 1857, before me ' JoaK 15. Kenney, Aid. Mott et ti. vs Pennsylvania Railroad Company, et. si. Brief ou behalf of Gov. Pollock. The Governor is not amenable to this court or to any court for the exercise of his executive functions : but is responsible only in the mode pointed out in the constitu tion. Any judicial interference with the prerogative or the executive, or with his acts as Governor in accordance with the directions of the Legislature, would be a violation of the constitution, the natural eflwt of trhfeh would be a collision between the different de partments of the government. In the case of Marbury vs. Madison, 1st Cranch, 137, which was an application to the Supreme Court of the United States for a mandamus to the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Lee, in arguing in eep port of the application, distinctly admitted that the court had no jurisdiction to issue a mandamus to tho President in any case what ever, and that the Secretary of State was not liable to a mandamus in respect to any official acts in reference to which he acted under the discretion of the President. The court, in their opinion in the same case, expressly dis claim any right to attempt to intermediate with the Presideutin the exercise of his ex ecutive perogative, pp. 165-G, 169-70. ' Where the head of a department," say they, " acts in a case in which he is the mere organ of executive will, any application to a court to control in any respect bis conduct, would be rejected without hesitation It is scarcely necessary for the court to disclaim all preten sions to such a jurisdiction. An extrava gance so absurd and excessive could uot have been sustained for a moment. The province of the court is sorely to decide on the rights of individuals not to inquire how the execu tive or executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions iu their nature political, or which are by the constitution and laws submitted to the execu tive, can never be made in this 'court." 2d. Are the complainants, as publio offi cers, entitled to bring the ptlfcilc rights into this Court to be adjudicated upon, and to con test the validity of an act of the Legislature on account of its bearing on the public inter ests. What publio fuuetions have they ex oept.juat such as the Legislature chooses to give them ? Formerly appoiuted by the Governor, and more recently elected by the people in accordance with an act of Assem bly, they are merely ministerial ageuts, all whose tnovemeuts are subject to tho control of the Legislature, which is iu the constant habk of supervising and directing their pro ceedings and of overruling and reversing their acts whenever it is considered expedient to do so. The same-power which created them can abolish them and all their functions, and the attempt on their part to set up them selves a possession of tho public works, to assume the power of questiouing, in their capacity - of public agents, the right of the Legislature to dispose of them, and of inter posing to invoke the process of this Court, to prevent the executive from carrying out the directions of the Legislature, to expose them to sale, is an arrogant pretension to authori ty not delegated to them, and an infatuated attempt to rise higher than the : source from which they derivo their very existenco . as public agents. 3d. Is the case as set out in the allegations contained in the bill such as to entitle the complainants, either as publio officers or pri vate individuals, to demand and. to require this Court to extend to them the exercise of the extraordinary interposition, of the Court to restrain, by special injunction, the sale of the Main Line of the Public Works as pre scribed by ' the act of the 16th of May. 1857, or the purchase there of by any of tho defendants ? On this it is to be ob served, that an injunction to restrain any particular person from biding at the sale, may, by removiogompetition, as effectual ly prevent the sa'e from beiug made, as a positive prohibitiotrof the sale. - " A legislative act cannot be impeached - by evidenoe in relation to tie manner of pro ceeding, or the motives which induced the members of the body, or the agencies used td procure its passage: ,.It would bo unbe coming and discourteous to the legislative body to institute such inquiry ; and any at tempt to pat such questions in issue will al ways b repudiated by tka courts." This principle was conclusively established by the Supreme Court of the United . States, in Fletcher vs. Peck, 6th Cranch, 129-131, and was'recognined and acted on by our Supreme Court, in Jones vs. Jones, 2d Jones, 350. Se$ also on this point, the remarks of Black, Ch. J.. in Sharpless vs. Mayor of Philadel phia. 9th liar., 161-2. . Whether, therefore, the Pennsylvania Rail road Company, or their agents, promoted the passage of the said act of 'Assembly, with the view and intent of becoming the pur chasers, nd Whether alledged in the 6aid bill, the said public works have been a source of revenue and profit to the State Treasury for five years last past, or whether on the other hand, as is with glaring and gross inconsis tency alleged by Ilenry S. Mott, one of these complainants, in his bill simultanously filed, they have not for many years yealded income sufficient to pay the. cost of keeping them in Tiavfge'frteYare questions upon the con sideration of which thia carnot enter, and which Cannot in any degiec aflTect the deter mination of the case. The1 naked question, therefore results, whether the tender to the Pennsylvania Rail road Company of exemption from the tonnage tax and from other State taxes upon their bonds nd property, upon their becoming the purchaser of the Main Line, and paying a million and a half of dollars in addition to their bid, is an unconstitutional assumption of power by the Legislature, which renders the act whilly invalid, null and void. There is nothing in the Constitution of Penn sylvania which expressly, or by necessary inference, limits the Legislature in its admit ted pover of regulating taxation ; and in the absence of such provision, the competency of the Legislature to part with the taxing power in reference to specified property has been frequently recognized, and cannot at this day be regarded as au open question. In the State of New Jersey vs. Wilson, 7th Cranch, 164, it was decided that a legislative act de claring that certain lands which should be purchased from the Indians should not be thereafter subject to any tax, constituted a contract, which tould not be rescinded by a subsequent legislative act : such repealing act being void under that clause of the Con stitution of the United States, which prohibits a State from passing any law imparing the obligation of contracts. But if the position assumed by these complainants were correct, that the right to tax is inalienable, and that the Legislature cannot bind the government agaiust its future exercise, the first mentioned act in that case would have been wholly inop erative and void, and there would have been no valid contract to be im pared or violated. The same question arose in Gordon Vs. Ap peal Tax Court, 3d Howard 133. The Leg islature of Maryland in 1821, continued the charter of several banks to 1845, upon con dition that they would make a road and pay a school tax. A clause in the law provided tbat upon any of the said banks accepting of and complying with tho terms and conditions of the act, the faith of the State was pledged not to impose any further iax or burden upon them during the continuance of their charters under the act. Held, that this was a contract exempting the stockholders from a tax which the Legislature, in 1S41, attempted to levy on them as individuals, accordiug to the amount of their stock. In State Bank of Ohio vs. Knoop, 16th Howard. 369, the same position was insisted on which is now pressed on us that the relin quishment of tho taxing power cannot be made the subject of a binding contract be tween the Legislature and individuals or cor porations. Judge McLean, in delivering theopinion of the Court, completly overthrows this position, and demonstrates the right of the "Legislature to exempt specified property from taxation, relinquishment, commutation or limitation. See p. 383 to 391. This case was reviewed and affirmed in Dodge vs. Woolsey, 18th How., 831. The principal is also contained in many other cases. See Hardy vs. Wcltham, 7th Pitk. 110. Atwater vs. Woodbridge, Gth Conn, 323. Seymour vs; Hartford, 21st Conn 481. Our Legislature have frequently passed laws exempting property from taxation. See 7th section. Act 1st March, 1780, 1st Smith's Laws, 4S9. exempting lands granted to sol diers, &c, during their lives, and act of 16th of March, 1785, section 33, 2d Smith, 287, to same effect, and those act3 aeccognized in Finnev vs. Commissioners of Mercer countyj letS.'&R., 62. Coney vs. Owens. 0th Watts, 435, see per Kennedv, Just p. 433 Act o"f 16th April, 1833, pamp. p. 514, exempts churches, colleges, &c. And the numerous acts exempt particular properties from taxation. Act of the 5th April, 1S49, pamp. p. 360 exempts certain certificates of loan of certain municipal corporations from taxation, except for State purposes. Act 4th May.' 1852, authorizes the Gov ernor and Sate Treasurer to borrow five mil lions, and issuo bonds which shall not be sub ject to taxation for any purpose whatever. 'Act 10th 'of April. 1853, sect. 92, pamp. p. 604, authorizes Governor and State Treas urer to issue bonds of Commonwealth for money borrowed, not subject to taxation for any purposes whatever. Act of 18th May, 1857. sect. 70, extends this provisions' for two years. Act of 1st. of May, 1854, pamp. p. 535, exempts certain loans of city of Philadelphia; &6 , from taxation; except for State purposes. , Tnb3 E. Fhanklix, Attorney General; ' ' Thursday Jcxjs 18. ' At the opening; of the Court yesterday, Mr Hirst presented the following petition : . The petition of Samtiel B. Cooper, Jacob Tomer and Wm. Perkins, - Commissioners of Allegheny county in the Commonwealth of Pennsylrania, acting for arid on behalf of said eonorj of Allegheny, repectfull ref reesnt: That tho said county is the owner of (20,000) 1 twenty tnousand sbarcs ot the capital stock of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and have owned and held the same for nine years, last past; that a bill has been filed in this hon orable Court in the above cause, setting forth that the said Company threatens and intends "to become the purchaser 6T the Main Line of tho-Public Works of the State, according to the terms and provisions of the act of Assem bly of May I6th. A. 1). 1857, referred to in the said bill, and praying for the causes and reasons therein assigned, that the said Com pany, their officers, servants and agents, and the other defendants named in th, said bill, may be enjoined, by the decVee 'of your hon ors," from purchasing tho same. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honors will permit them to become parties, complainants, to the said cause, and aid and as sist in pi executing the same, according to the practice Of equity in such cases, and they will ever pray, &o. - - S. B.COOPER. .' JACOB TOMEU, WM. PERKINS. Commissioners of Allegheny County, Pa. - Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Alleghe ny county. &c : On tho 12th day of June, A. D. 1857, persoually appeared before the undersigned authority, S. B. Cooper, Jacob Tomer and Wm. Perkins, the above named Commissioners of Allegheny county, who, be ing duly sworn, said that the facts set forth in the 'above petition are just and true, to the best of their knowledge aud belief. S. B. COOPER. JACOB TOM Kit. WM. PERKINS. Sworn and subscribed before me tho day and the year aforesaid. Alfred B. M'Calmont, Froth onotary Sup. Court, Western District Mr. Campbell, on behalf of defendants, read the following affidavit : ' J. Edgar Thompson, President of the Penn sylvania Railroad Companv, being duly af firmed according to law. saith, That the coun sel for the defendants did not receive notice until after 3 o'clock of the afternoon of June 1 5th 1857, that the county of Allegheny wo'd petition for leave to be made parties complai nant in this cause; that the stock of the Penn sylvania Railroad Company, issued to the county of Allegheny at the time of their sub scription to the capital stock of the Pennsyl vania Railroad Company, was and is pledged to secure the payment of the bonds issued by said county therefore, and that the said pledge appears upon the Face oTthe bonds so fosbed '; that the schedule hereto annexed, contains, as he verily believes, a list of the parties hol ding or owning Said bonds and the amount held by each; that he verily believes that said proceedings have been taken by the Commis sioners of said county without the application or request of any of the parties holding the bonds of said county and equitably entitled to said stock; that he verily believes that, no one of the holders of said bonds would join there in, and that if reasonable time could be affor ded they would request the discontinuance of such proceedings and would all freely consent to exchange and surrender to the said county the bonds held by them for the like amounts of tho stock ef the said Company. J EDGAR THOMPSON. Affirmed and subscribed before me, June 16, 1857. Jso. B. KeSseY, Alderman Mott et al vs. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Charles Henry Fisher being duly sworu according to law, doth depose and say that he is the representative of the hol lers of $291,000 ot the bonds of the County tf Alle gheny, the same being & portion of the loan of 1,000-, 000 created by said county for the purposes of effecting a subscription of SI, 000- ooa to the capital stock of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company!. That by the terms of the loan which is represented and the pay ment of Which is secured by said bends, the ehaies of capital stock iu said Railroad Com pany which were issued to the said county of Allegheny, tire pledged as a security Ifcr the redemption of said loan; that the deponent as tho representative of the said bonds, and there fore equitably interested iu said stock to the amoaut thereof, doe's not believe that the val ue of said stock will be injuriously effected by a purchase of the said Main Line of publio works by the Pennsylvania Railroad Compa ny, if said purchase shall be effected; and docs not desire that any proceedings shall be ta ken by the county of Allegheny, as whose property the same are pledged for th purpose of defeating such purchase. Oa the contra ry thereof he believes that the purchase of the said Main Line, if effected lipoh the terms and condition of the Act of Assembly, will be benjeficial to the company. That he veri ly believes that it is the interest, and will be the" desire of the other holders of such bonds to exchange the bonds held by them for the corresponding amount of stock of the Compa ny. C. II. FISHER Sworn and subscribed before me, June 16, 1857. JNO. B. KENNEY, Alderman To the JIoHoralle the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania'. The undersigned respectfully represent, that they are holders iu their own right or for others, to the amounts set opposito to their names, of the bonds of the county of Alleghe ny, issued for that stock, subscribed by said county to the Pennsylvania Railroad Compa ny, and for which said stock is pledged, as by a copy of said bonds hereto attached will ap pear. - - That they are the parties equitably inter ested iu said stock to the amouut set opposite to their nauiei. That they are in favor of the purchase of the Main Line of the Public Worfcs by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, under tho Act of tho 10th of May, 1857, and they do verily believe that said purchase will be for the advantage of stockholders in said Com pany, and ' would enhtnee the value of said stbok so pledged for the bonds held by them. That , the .Ccromissiorierii fff Allegheny county are only naki d Truttoes'of rtid atcek. VOL,. 4, NO. 34. having no interest therein, and that the un dersigned parties interested in said stock, do protest against the interVerntion of ftiid Com missioners as holders of said stock, to prevent the aforesaid sale ' ' That any action of said Commissioners re sisting said sale is, in their opinion, hostile to heir rights and interests of the parties cqui tably interested in said stock. That they bave never advised, consented given any permission lo said Trustees to in terfere In the suit now pending by Henry S. Mott to prevent said sale, and they do pro test against such interference, and pray the Court to protect their rights in said stock. J. Edgar Thompson, Attorney. 32.000 Jno. Haseltine, 10,000 Evans Rogers, " S.OOO D. Uaddock. Jr.. 5,00r) 8. G. Fotterall. - 10.000 S. G . Fotterall, Trustee. 6.000 Geo. W. Page, ' 5,000 Geo, W Page, Trustee, 7.000 JameS Page. ' '' '-'" 1.00 C. Tingley, President of Reliance 5fu- tual Insurance Co., Philadelphia, 10.000 To the Honorable Judjc of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: The undersigned respectfully represent that they are holders in their own right, or for others to the amount set opposito to their names, of the bonds 'of the county of Alle gheny, issued for the stock subscribed by said County to the Pennsylvania Railroad Compa ny, for which sail stock 13 pledged, as by & copy of said bonds, hereto attached, will ap pear. Thai they are the parties equitably in terested in said stock to the amount set oppo site to their names. That they are in favor of the purchase of the Main Line of the Pub lic Works by the Pennsylvania Railroad Com pany, rindeT the Act of the 16th of My. 1857; and they do verily believe thit-esvl purchase will be for the advantage of the stockholders in said Company, and would en hance the value of said stock so pledged for the bonds held by them. That the Commis sioners of Allegheny are only naked trustees of said stuck, having ao interest therein ; Vd that the undersigned, parties interested ia said stock, do protest against the intervention of said Commissioners, as holders of said stock, to prevent the aforesaid Vale," That any action of said Commissioners resisting said sale, is in their opinion hostilo to the rights and interest of the parties equitably interested in said stock. That they have never advised, consented or given any per mission to Said Trustees to interfere , in t tha 6uit now pending by Henry S. Mott to pre vent said sale ; and they do protest against such interference, and pray the Court to pro tect their rights in. said stock. R. M. Ewing, Attorney, &o, Minor street. .. $14,500 Wm. P. Weir, Attorney, &c. 6.500 S. II. Carpenter, , 10,000 J. P. Montgomery, for self, and Ror. II." E. and O. C. Montgomery, Trustees, Ac. . . . r . 4,000 To the Honorable JuJge of the Supreme Comet of Pennsylvania: Tho undersigned respectfully represent, that they are holders in their own right, or for others, to the amounts set opposite to their names of the Bonds of the County of Allegheny, issucPd for ihe Stock subscribed by said Coilhty to the Pennsylvania Railroad, Company, and for which sid Stock pledejl as by a copy of said Boiids hereto at'.sohed will appear ... That they lire Ihe parties equitably ialcr ested in said stock to tho amounts set crpo site to their names. t That they are iu favor of the pcrchise .of the Main Line of Public Works by the Penn sylvania Railroad Company under the act of the 16th of May, 1857, and do verily believe- that said purchase will be to the advantage, p the Stockholders of said Company and w uli enhance the value of said Stock so pledged for the. Bonds held by them. , That the Commissioners of Allegheny county are only baked trustees of said stock, having no interest therein, and that the un dersigned parties, interest fed in said stock, do protest against the intervention of said. Com missioners as holders of flahi stock to prcvoct the aforesaid sale. - -, . -a. i That any action of said Commissioners re sisting said sale is, in their opinion, hostile to the rights and interests of the parties equita bly interested in said stock. That they have never advised,, consented or given any permission to said trustees to in terfere in the suit now pending by Keijry S. Mott to prevent said sale, and they do protest against such interference, and pray the Court to p-otect their rights in said stock Alex. J. Derbyshire, 7.409 A. L. Derbeyshire & Co., . , 3.0C0 Mr. Stanton saidf the . proceedings before tho Court draws in question the .validity of the Act of Assembly, regulating the sale of the Maiu Line. These works were construc ted by the Stata in pursuance of her system of internal improvement under the bontirol of the Board , of Canal Commissioners. It is natural that a measure like this should create a diversity of opinionj affectiog as it does si many private interests local feelings, and party expediency. But where such a mat ter comes intoaoourt pf justice, its judgment should be stripped of all Euch feelings.no mat ter what should be the private feelings ef tha individual judges. .This Act of Assembly il no new measure . Such a sale has been agi tated and sanctioned by popular vote thirteen' years ago, and Acts of the Legislature uader different administrations'- The Act was duly passed by the.Legislatare and. signed by th Governor. Any exercise of judicial authori ty in a matter of this kind Should be cautious ly done, and particularly so on a preliminary motion for injunction. To give encourage-' ment to this proceeding will keep the commu nity iu an unsettled and agitated condition. - -Ambitious arid factious parties having been defeated before the Legilatur will rush to th Courta of Justice for a jenjfdj, and " v - t ; i:' f. 'si: -.VC:. i !;";'; ' Y . : i i i ,' :., 1-1 -v . ; . 1 - . ' -'"ri"' m r-o." " - 'i . -. ' - " -' i t 4 t -. '-, m- - " ii ' f- ' i r-i-'-r - ... Or .' ;-''- t V M- : - :i ti. ! '; ': - ' : ''" . - . t - t i v: r j . ' - I II
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers