Gould-Huntington

ReadAboutContentsHelp
Statement about contract between Jay Gould and Collis Potter Huntington for constructing railroad lines between New Orleans and the Pacific Ocean.

Pages

Gould-Huntington_0001
Indexed

Gould-Huntington_0001

J. C. Brown [underlined]

Original Contract — made by Prest — Trans Cont. ais [Trans-Continental Association] made by Traffic Maneyers [Managers]

When the Trans Cont. [Trans-Continental] was adopted? -----

Territorial earnings not same in transferel [transferal] as in G & H [Gould-Huntington] Contract.

-----

Last edit over 3 years ago by California State Library
Gould-Huntington_0002
Complete

Gould-Huntington_0002

In the view I am about to present of this controversy I can add but little to considerations that must have already arisen of your own mind founded upon your great experience as railroad managers, but I offer them from that abundant caution for which my profession is noted, in the fear, that in the manifold engagements and in the pre-occupation of mind which your labors for many days past have involved you they may be forgotten.

In a contest of this character the rigors and severity of rules of law are not to be envoked or strained, when men withdraw their disputes or disagreements from the ordinarily constituted tribunals and submit them to their neighbors, it is with the supposition and expectation that the abitrators [arbitrators] will take an equitable view of the situation and "to the extent"[crossed out] do as nearly equal and exact justice as "they can"[crossed out] is possible.

It may be useful to dwell for a moment on the origin of the transaction, in which the disagreement arises that necessitates the parties seeking your intervention.

Last edit over 3 years ago by cgonzalez
Gould-Huntington_0003
Indexed

Gould-Huntington_0003

[Top right corner:] 2

[left margin:] The corporations represented by C. P. Huntington owned and are operating a continues through line from the Pacific Coast to the Gulf of Mexico and to New Orleans

C. P. Huntington and Mr. Gould were constructing lines of railroads between New Orleans and the Pacific Occean [Ocean] —

[left margin:] The Corporations represented by Mr G. [ Mr. Gould ] owned and were operating lines of road from St Louis and other points on the Mississippi River and points in the interior westward with an alternate intention of reaching the Pacific Ocean.

Mr Gould were building westward and C. P. Huntington "were stretching his"[crossed out] having completed his line through California and Arizona were building eastward thro' New Mexico and was constructing a portion of the lines of the G. H. & S. A. [Galveston, Harrisburg, & San Antonio Railway] in Texas.

[left margin:] The parties became satisfied that it was for the best interests of all of the corporations to have but one line west of El Paso.

Mr. Gould therefore claimed that these lines built by C. P. Huntington in Arizona New Mexico and Texas were the property of the Texas and Pacific because built upon its right of way and were a usuperation [usurpation] of the franchises granted to the Texas and Pacific.

[left margin:] By the terms of the agreement the title and owner-ship of that line was quoted and conceded to be in the corporations represented by C. P. Huntington.

As will be seen by a perusal of the contract of Nov. 26 1881. a long and protracted litigation arose between the T & P [Texas and Pacific] and the "lines were"[crossed out] companies controlled by C. P. Huntington and it was found to use the language of the contract that —

"the continuation of such litigation was injurious to all of said companies and incidentally "to the public" [underlined] interest so far as the business of said lines was concerned"

"And whereas said differences and litigation have been found upon conference and deliberation to the suspectable of amicable adjustment, as in this contract provided."

There after the terms of the contract are stated, its provided in Sec XV that although either party resort to the courts to protect any right secured by this agreement, yet they

Last edit about 2 months ago by msnique70
Gould-Huntington_0004
Complete

Gould-Huntington_0004

[top right corner:] 3

mutually agreed "to submit"[crossed out] at the request of either party to submit their disagreements to three arbitrators like chosen as provided in said section.

In other words the parties before you met as enemies in a period of truce they examined their differences as found them capable of amicable adjusment [adjustment] they departed as friend and allies and bound by a contract to a common end and provided that if they differed as the true intent and meaning of that contract three disinterested men should settle such differences and to such settlement each would assent.

The meaning of this portion of the contract is that each shall be spared, the delay, vexation and expense of a contest in Court, there shall be no technical advantage to either, that each shall fully and fairly present his case, neither seeking any advantage "but"[crossed out] that the abitrators [arbitrators] shall do equity between them and carry out "not so much" [underlined] the letter of the contract but the true intention of the parties to be evidence not only by their words by their conduct.

Last edit over 3 years ago by California State Library
Gould-Huntington_0005
Complete

Gould-Huntington_0005

[top right corner:] 4

In the communication made by the Receiver of the Texas & P. Ry. Co. [Texas & Pacific Railway Company] to your Board he states that the controversy between the Southern Pacific Company and the Texas & Pacific is in regard to the proper interpretation of the term "Gross Earnings" and he says that the Southern Pacific hold "that pool [underlined] balances, subsidies, expenses &c [etc.] paid out by them as members of the Trans-Continental Association, (an association formed by formal contract dated Jan 20. 1885) to other members of the Association are properly chargeable to Gross Earnings and should be deducted from said Gross Earnings, before reporting the latter to the Texas & Pacific under the Gould Huntington Contract.

Then state the claim made by the Receiver in his letter to the board.

Then the claim made by the Southern Pacific as shown in the letter of Mr Stubbs its General Traffic Manager "by the"[crossed out] to the Board —

The facts admitted by the parties.

The Opening Arguments

Last edit over 3 years ago by California State Library
Displaying pages 1 - 5 of 14 in total