The New York Herald Newspaper, December 2, 1868, Page 4

THE ERIE WAR. THE GOULD-DAVIES CONTROVERSY Close of Argument in the United States Circuit Court. State of Affairs at the Compa- ny’s Office. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT. ‘The Gould-Davies Controversy—Close of the Argument of CounselDecision Deferred. Before Judge Nelson, Henry D, Wheipley vs, The Erie Railway Compa- ny.—The argument on the motion to set aside the order made by Judge Blatchford last week appoint- ing Jay Gould recelver over the eight millions pro- ceeds of unauthorized stock said to be issued by the directors of the Erie Railway Company was resumed yesterday morning. The counsel appearing in support of the motion were Messrs, Charles 0’Conor, Edwaras Pierrepont, Henry E. Davies, D, B. Eaton, Noah Davis and C. A, Rapallo, while the opposite side of vhe question was represented by Messrs. E. W. Stoughton, D. D. Field, John K. Porter, Clarence A. Seward and A, K, Vanderpoel. ‘The court Was unsually crowded on account both of the great interest that has been excited by the dis cussion of the great Erie question m the United States Circuit Court, presided over by the venerable Chief Justice of the Circnit, and from the sensational reports of the movements of some of the more promi- nent actors in the operations that have culminated an one of the most varied in its relations and most complicated and irrepressible litigations that ever engaged the atvention of the courts of this State. It might also have been supposed that some reference would have been made to the report of the alleged fight_of some of the principal litigants In the sev- eral sits, and that this would bring forth develop- ments of facts Known only to the lawyers in the case, if any were pn with this exppctation they were doomed to disappointment, for no allusion whatever was made to the parties or the act re- ferred to, Judge Nelson took his seat on the bench a few Minutes past eleven, when the argument of counsel 10 support of the motion was ordered to be resumed. Mr. Noah Davis was proceeding to address the Court, when ANOTHER ASPIRANT FOR THE TROUB: E8 OF LITIGA- TION, Mr. Thomas M. Whelan, made application on the part of Horace 8. ‘taylor, a stockbroker, asking to be permitted to come in as u party to the Whelpiey suit, ° Judge Nelson directed the counsel presenting it to read the application and motion. ‘This having been. done, Mr. Field inquired what the motion was? Mr. Whelan replied that it was merely an order to show cause. c Mr. Field asked whether the order did not also pro- pose to suspend all farther Ler panna Judge Nelson, having looked over the papers, ‘said that he did not see any bill or petition in form setting out the facts. Mr, Whelan—The petitioner sets out merely that he ds & atockbroker. Judge Nelson—Well, is that enough * Mr. Whelan—And that he holds some of the stock mentioned in the complaint, ° Judge Nelson—He must set out what it is and how much, He must give us some facts, He must be as specitions if you were Bling @ bill. That, perhaps, ‘will give you ali the information you want, ARGUMENT OF MR, NOAH DAVIS. Mr. Noah Davis opened the argument on behalf of the receiver, Mr. Henry E. Davies. The case, he said, had taken an extraordinary course. If Mr. Beimont came into couri claiming to be a stock- holder and asking to intervene in the suit there would seem to be no question but that the applica- tion should be granted without argument. All ine mass of afidavits, therefore, touching a variety of other questions seerfied to be entirely out of place. ‘Those aflidavits very clearly established a case where a party sianding inthe position of receiver might very well come 1 and claim that he, being entirely unpartial in the matter, should be recognized and continued as receiver. What should be the charac- ter of the receivership? If there was an at tempt to assail the character of Mr. Wavies, the receiver, he submitted that that was hardly an open question. Tne afidavits referring to Mr. Davies did not raise that point, but simply questioned whether there was any necessity at all ior the appointment of a re- ceiver, The State court had passed upon the ques- tion and heid that a stave of facts did exist calling for the appointment of # receiver. There was no bet- ter settled rule of law than that a court with concar- rent Jurisdiction would not review the decision and determination of the oiler court. He would assume, tuerefore, that the Court would regard the appoint ment as having been made by the State court on good and suficient grounds, and would refuse to re- View that action. Receiver Davies had never beeu connected with those transactions in such a way as to make him ineligible for the position, He had ap- peared as counsel for Mr. bloodgood in a tormer acuon against the Erie Railway Company, but that, instead of beg a reason against’ his appointment, was a reason in favor of it. It proved ium to be a suitable person for the investi wution of the matters of the company as not being to be in collusion with it. ‘There was nouhing circumstances which affected the propriety of the appomtment of Mr. H. EB. Davies. The Court, in sejecting him, had been guided by the highest public consideration. It was not till the argaun of Monday that the slighest objection had b in the made to him. Counsel on the other hand conid not urge that this was not a proper case for the appoint- nent of areceiver. All the facts alleged in tie bill of complaiut stood a lmitted by Counsel, and counsel were estopped from denying that those facts were true and from denying that either the present re- ceiver (Mr ies) shoald pontinaed or another receiver appointed, He argued thai Mr Jay Gould was not a fit ana proper n to hold the ofice of receiver, and that Mr. Henry E. Davies, the receiver appointed by the State court, was the fit and, proper person munsel proceeded to review the history of the re Hiugation and of the circumstances leading to appointment ot the rival recetvers. Receiver avies Clatined that he was entitied us recetver to all company, 28 well that men- appointing him as that named in ng Mr. Jay Gould, He stood betore € the company. He, therefe mio court for the purpose of showing tha: cetver appointed by Utls court (Mr. Jay ¢ removed. That appointwent was ry order appointing lum ed on its face tt own condemaation of the objects and purposes for whieh it was sough!. Mr. Receiver Davies, holding the generat title of al! the property, had very clearly control of it, including that entrusted to the re- ivership of Mr. Jay Go The votal amount of lerest claimed to be held by Mr. Belmont was ny $40,000; and for that it Was proposed give Mr. Receiver Gould control of $*,000,000. if Mr. Davies were substituted for Mr. Gould, by of this court, as a matter of course he would e control of that eight mtilions as of ali the other property of the company. The object of this bill was to protect the interests of holds of stares of , Iradulent in fact, but for which the company ponsible, These stockholders could apply to the receiv i he would pass apon thetr demands, Of conrse he contd not be sued without the authority the court. It Was a well-established principle that e receiver Was only the oflicer of the court. Pro * canto be was the cow Chancellor Waiworu had said ina ltke case that to permit a receiver to be sued would be to permit the court tteeif to be sued. One of his first duties was to ascertain who were the stockholders of the company. If any of them oveupied relations fm whieh ‘they were credi- tors by reason of their certificate being spurious, they would have 10 present their claims a8 debts for which the corporation was Habie. vhe Erie Railway Company (acting through Jay Gould, its executive officer) had filed @ bili in the supreme Court of the State of New York aguinst Mr. ay Gould as receiver, and against Mr. Henry E. Da- | ies ag receiver. ‘This bill Was to be tried in Broome county. And for What purpose? To enjotu both re- civers from acting in that capacity. ‘The bill was ‘led for the ostensible purpose of discovering which of Che two was the legitimate receiver, No one could bi that that extraordinary suit was commenced ir. Gould, the president of the company. It was jile plain, therefore, that ail (uese sulis Were col /Ausive, Judge Nelson—Can any of the thirty-two jud the Suave grant injunctions in the same lity ug against each other? Davis—Yes, sir; that i# the reason why tion Was granted here by Judge Cardozo © place of trial put in Broome county; He soy judge may grant an injunction that im- junction cannot be removed except by a motion to be made in the district In whieh the county is situ. ated where ihe case is to be tried. Judge Nelson—t see there is wnotuor injunction granted in Alvany Mr. Noah Davi . at Mr. Stoughton—Your Nonor refers tow euit insti- ‘tuted in bell of the Stater Judge Neison—Ves, Mr. Stoughtou—That is asoit commenced by Mr. poe =e! a eae attorne Sin this action, Tie At wruey General repudiates tue whole ti tho ca i distin wile thing, amd the Mr, O'Conor—That suit is not before your flonor. Mr. Noah Davis—It i4 not in the pape ra in any for As one of tho evidences of this collusion I was gomg to remark that while an injunction is is- sued in the city of New York the place of triai is put jo @ distant county, #0 that no Wotion to vacute that ta anetion Can be made in tiie city or in any district oxoopt the one Where the piace of trial is ikea, Thad gal title to the property of | s came | © | Mr, Eaton—And then the road was tm the heads of was for the purpose of further embarrassment. The counsel who invented that mode or who advised Mr. Gould to adopt tt is entitled to credit for his ingenu- ity, How is the Gordian knot to be cut? ‘Lo relieve the cofporation from its g) t thing is easier than for your the ditliculty by substitut ting i oti Si bree pany will gutter ourt will thus bunals of the 48 such officer, was @ party to the acts com- mitted, As treasurer and president foo tion and as one of the Executive Committee he is | not competent to be appointed receiver, , That prin- ciple has been heid by the greatest juristh, Younsel cited pt ents and decisions in su} | of the latter point and of the potnt that there should not be two receivers of the one und, Judge Nelson attention to the point as to what effect the making Mr. Belmont @ party in this sult would have upon the proceedings in the State court, “Mr. Noah Davis sald that that question should ve answered by Mr. Belmont’s in the State court was Mr. Rapallo said the suit founded on the rights of Mr. lately issued stock of the company. In addition to the legai stock which he held he also heid stock of a spurious character. fis interference in this sult wouid only affect his rights as holder of spurious stock, The wo suits were entirely independent of be other, and there was no conflict in the two posi- ons, Mr. O’Conor remarked that Mr. Belmont was a ph in the one case and a stockholder in the other, ARGUMENT OP MR, STOUGHTON. Mr, Stoughton followed un the opposite side of the question. Zhe case, he thought, had been rather obscured than illuminated by the mass of aMaavits and by the arguments of counsel, and he would en- deayor to present the simple and, as he conceived, the important points of the case, 1t came before the court on two petitions—one by Mr.,Belmont and his partner, claiming the benefit of the suit brought by Whelpley against the Erie Railway Company, and tie otuer by Mr. Henry E. Davies, who asked the court first that Mr, Jay Gould be set aside as | "The general ground on which sought to come in was that he possessed some stock such as Whelpley said he was the owner of und was therefore entitied to the same reilef, Mr. Belmont, therefore, claimed not only the benefit of the adjudication made in behaif of Wheipley, the complainant, but the benetit of participating in the fund, over wiuch Mr. Jay Gould was appointed re- ceiver, He, therefore, aitirmed the regularity of the proceedings, and must go hagd in hand with the complainant in its prosecution. The claim of Mr. Davies rested on a different ground. He said that on the 2d of November last he was appointed a re- ceiver of the Erle Railway Company by a judge of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, not only of the fund set apart by this court, but of all the property of the company, as if he were a corporation sole. there was any proposition that was beyond quesuon it was that there was now no receiver of the Ene Railway Company, that the order of the Supreme Court of the State wa@ as entire a nullity as if 1 had been voted and made by a mob in the street. He saic this with great respect for Judge Sutheriand, for whose honesty and purity of character and in- tention no man has a higher estimate than himseif, Itis charged here that this order was obtained by collusion. Mr. Davis—We said obtained in chambers, Mr, Stouguton—To what case do you refer ?\ Mr. Davis—The Mcintose case. Mr. Stoughton—I refer to the order obtained from Judge Blatchford. It has been urged that that order Was obtained by collusion, and he had heard criu- eisms made with regard to the obtaining of that order which it disliked to hear, and which were pot only {| unjust, but would recotl on those who made them. ‘The Court would bear in mind that when the appli- cation for the order was made it was made on «# Dill of complaint in this case, and ! ihe benefit of which Belmont and his partner received. he Court will remember that all that the learned Judge who granted the order had before hitu was this pill of complaint, What was its ’ Why, that certaia bonds had been issued to jount of several millious by this company, con- vertibie into stock, and the person claiming to own @ parce! of this stock, the complainant in the suit, tiles his bill alleging that that stock is invalid because the company had no power to issue it, and he asks to have it so adjadicated, and that he be entitied to judgment against the company for the ue of the stock he was thus indaced to buy. it complaint put forward another tdea—that this ought to be o against part of the assets of the company; that there might be money enough in case recovery should be had by the plaintiff and to meet the judgment which might | be obtained in this sutt for other parties similarly | situated. He (counsel) thought that Belmont and ee ner who claim the benefit of that suit, can hardly pe heard to complain or to criticise or insinuate that the suit Was brought by collusion, What next? | Why, that the attorney of the company appeared in | the District Court and waived a notice in the appii- cation for the appointment of a receiver. He as- sented to nothing: he merely waived a notice of service. What followed? The learned judge, ine structed only by the bill—having no notice of what ‘was transpiring in the State Court in this matter— with no knowledge that this hasty order was to be made by Judge Sutuerland—with no kuowledge oe participation in any of the proceedings of the t the at State Court—he (Judge Blatenford) made the order wigch is the subject of criticisin in this suit. What isgue fact as presented wo the learned Judge? He fouad Jay Gould had been placed in the position of treasurer of the company; he did not know it tuen, but i turns out here, by the unauimous vote of the stockholders at an election duly and properly heid. He Judge Blatchford) found Gould charged With the possession of all the moneys of the com- pany, in charge of the property and money of the corporation, and be converted him into an oficer of the Court, placing him, in fact, under the jurisdic- | tion of the Court and making him amenable to tae Court. By that order he did not lessen the | capacity of a court of justice to take hold « the property of the company. Why, tue Judy: ‘aniing the order ordtred htm (Gould) to give a pond in a penalty of a million of doliars. Did that order lessen the capacity of the creditors of the company or the stockholders of the compauy to gel tueir rights or to receive their just demands from the company? By making Mr. Gould ver of the money already in his hands, the Jourt subjected him 10 the authority of tue Court, not only by removal but by panisument if he should Violate his duties, Lid not the Judge also when he ered him to give bond tn # million of dollars, put n under the further obitgation ty bold safely and to accowut for justly all the money tn his hands’ He should like to know by what right or upon what ground counsel dare suggest a criticisia on-the con- duct of a 1 Judge or that of the parties who go before hia wader such cireumstances, when all ewas to increase and ‘strengthen ch they say Were $0 iratl aud un- iiies wn vis—I beg to interrupt a moment. 1 disdain # of mputing anything to the learned Judge { order. ‘There bave been also charges unsel in the case, ~We. have said nothing afrainst O04 | ioughion—Wiil counsel then explain what | they mean by collsion, forit takes two persons to be | guilty of collusion? If it was by complamant’s counsel | going to that Court and @ettiag an order that in- creases the security of the company, he siould like to know by what right any humen betng dare to charge him with colinsion, He would add that there was a cireumetance connected with the criticism on the pourt and the withdrawal of tt, the appearance of an article in @ newspaper which unfortunately | one of rounsel for the moving parities is | Known to be closely connected with, and which he trusted y showd Gisposed of satis. ptoriiy after the disc er that had been made by couneel on other side. Counsel then read Juige Bf i's order appoint- ing Jay Gould receiver, and continned:—Do gentie- men Ob the other side say that Mr. Gould 18 subject to their imputations, or docs he stand in such a re- | lation to this controversy and these parties that he should not be Jeft i that position « the court so decided? Why should Judge Davies be appotated. He would trouble the Court a few moments only with the conflicting claims of these two genliemen. They liad presenied before them as the ground on which Gould is sought to be removed a forest of papers; but these had dwindled down on the part of the applicant's three papers. The peti- hon of Belinont states nothing, but refers to what is stated in his complaint in the State court and the affidavits annexed thereto, and those are put for- as containing everything on which he of Gould from the receiver. the other witness called this bil? Daniel Drew, | He and _ Eldrid: had controlied the = Erie Company and had controlled tye settlement wih Schell. And they now found Daniel Drew oifering not to make an affidavit in the case ifthe company would consent to his demand to give him 90,000 shares of stock. These were the men who ussaiied Mr. Gould, These were the meu who had beea in the direction of the corporation and had made it a byword. ‘The road had never paid a dividend (o tts siuckhoiders but twice, ) ward Seeks the removal ship. Who was upon to bolster | a receiver, | Mr. Stoughton--Whot My. Katon—Mr. Nathanfel Matsin. Mr. Stouguton—If my learned brother, tn his joyous 1 Vision, sees oth fyi ids nuder Mr. Kecelver Davies he * reatiy fiistaken, Mr. Stoughton went ou to argif That there was now, actually or legally, Why, he asked, were not proceedings taken in the State courts to remove Gould, Fisk and Lave if they ite charged against were known to ie pedo nthe of comp fore Ht ally prayed’ tat the dteators, and Lane, Temoved. But the statute that the E 8 h Ai Re ge : aii et 2 £ S 2) Drew, Lemna pug po @ respectable dog on such testimony given. He proceeded to show that the settlement of the Schell litigation, the iniquity of which was sought to be thrown on Gould, had peen fully brought before and decided by the Board of Direc- tors. That settlement was a part of the conditions on which the war on the company was to cease, and although both sides had-been guilty of tampering with the interests of the stockholders, it appeared that Gould and Fisk were protesting all tie time against It, As tothe story of the change in the by- laws by which no stockholders could vote in elecitons unless they were present, and which was charged upon Gould and Fisk, it was an entire fabrication. There was no reason or sense in it, because at the election there was but one ticket presented. As to the closing of the books sixty days before the election it was done at the suggestion of the transfer clerk, who said that it wags impossible to write up the books and ascertain who the stocklold- ers were within the usual time of thirty days. As to the statement that Gould, Fisk and Lane controlied the company that was hardly a matter to be taken cognizance of by a court, because the business of all great corporations was usually managed by its ex- ecutive ollicers, the directors only meeting at speci- fied times to receive their reports, It had been also charged that the funds of the company were in the hands of Gould, Fisk and Lane, as if ‘they were pri- vate funds. That, however, was whoily de- nied, and was not true. As’ to the aver- ment that they were not men of means, counse! was sometimes inclined to regret that that Was not a disqualification for office m his country: bub even if it were he thought those gontiemen could show themselves fully qualified in that re- spect. As to the charge af a large purchase of pro- perty in Buffalo, the only ground for it was the pay- ment of $6,090 for rights of way. As to the purchase of property in Weehawken, it had been procured at Jess than its vatue, Counsel called attention io the significant fact that no ee was made against those gentlemen by any of their co-directors, and also to the fuct that there was testimony on the part of some of the principal oMicers aud directors of the compairy that the conduct of those gentlemen had been marked by great eftictency, tnteili- gence and regard for the interests of thir trusts. if any receiver were to be appointed other than Mr. Gould it should be a person who had no interest in either side of the controversy. It certainly should not be Mr. Davies. If that gentleman were a re- ceiver and were entitled under the order of the State court mete hperitp ria Renta red hold all the property of the company until its atfairs were relieved of its present embarrassed condition, It did not appear that the eight millions obtained from the sale of the convertible bonds had been képt dis- | vertible bonds by the di no receiver of the company. He contended that on the bill before Judge Satherland that Judge had no Tore power to make the order appointing Mr. Davies receiver than had tie clerk oF tno court, and, in pport of tuat view, he cited the Revised Statutes aod various decisions afiecting the appointment of receivers. The Court might suspend a trustee who acted in violation of his duty. It might remove him on conviction. ‘The Court might also direct a new election to be held by the remaining mombers of the board. But he shouid like to see the warrant for taking possession (on the allegation that a trastee had been gulity of frand and misconduct) of the en- tire property, subsiwutially of the franchises of the corporation, thereby working tha dissolution, tinct from the other assets of the company. It was needless to argue, therefore, that the Court could not appolat a recetver over a fund which had no existence. The prayer in the petition in this suit was an alternative onc—either to compel the com- pany to issue convertible bonds instead of the spurious stock, or else pay the amount paid for the spurions stock, with interest thereon. When it wus suggested by counsel that there was a Stipulation that a fund should be set apart for the redemption of the spurious stock it was a sugges- tion arising out of a misapprehension. There was no such stipulation made. ARGUMENT OF MR. D, D. PLELD, Mr. D. D, Field followed on the same side. He said that after the forcible argument of Mr, Stough- ton his task would be comparatively easy. It would be, out of the great mass of attidavits, to pick out important points and lay them before the Court for its consideration. Nothing could be more mdefinite than the order appointing Jay Gould receiver or than the petition praying for it. It did not specify over what he was to bea receiver. The paragraph of the bill under which he was appointed was that during the pending of the suit & receiver of the defendant should be appointed. Who are they on whose behalf the suit had been in- Atituted? They were the holders of the spurious stock issued to Henry M. Smith, and by him dis- posed of to the complainant and others. ‘There was therefore this remarkable fact, that there was no other descriptions of the receivership of Mr. Gould than as receiver of the defendant, and that all he Was to Secure Was enough to cover that stock with- out stating the amount of it, ‘The question here was, #hould Mr. Gould be removed and Mr. Davies put in his place, and should Mr. Belmont be allowed to m- tervenc? Had anything occurred since the 2ud of November, when Mr. Gould was appointed, which requirea his removaif Had he done or suired @ single act since which justified or required his removal’ No such suggestion bad been made, Mr. Gould had acted just as ii was his duty to act. Had any decéption bern practised ou the Court in the appointment of Mr. Couid? ‘There Was no suggestion of that kind either, No de- ception had been practised a8 to the frame ot the suit or its allegations. Even if it were a friend! sult it did not detract from the good faith in which it had been brought. Mr. Wheipley, the complainant, heid stock on which a cloud bad been casi, and he wished to have the determination of the federal court upon it, ‘There was nothing about the suit talse or deceptive either in omission or in statement, Who objected to it? Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant. They were satisfied. ‘The only persons objecting were Mr, Belmont and Mr. Davisa, What Was the objection to Mr. Govid? It was threefali— first, that he was fraudulentiy elected as president of the company by the over issne of 200,000 shares of stock; second, that he was fraudulently interested in the illegal issue of convertible bonds, and third, that he used the funds of the company for uniawfa! purposes, ‘The first allegation was disproved. Mr. Gould had beenelected by @ unanimous vote, at the head of which stood 3 Moses Taylor. atement in the complaint of Mr. Belmont as to fraudulent overissue of stock was as false as filse contd be. As to the purchase of Pike's Opera House, that was apecuiation of Mr. Fisk, out of ‘his private junds, not out of the funds of the company. ‘The charge of its being made out of the funds of the Erie Railway Company was as faise as the charge about the overisaue of stock. It was all as “baseless as the unsubstantial fabrio of a vision.” It wasérae that Mr, Gould was concerned in the tssue of stion of the company. aduniived that, aud le proceedet tO argue that under the tenth section of the General Katiroad act of is50 the company had @ right to issie such bond The whole question turned on the operation of that act, which allowed = railroad corp: nies to issue bonds convertible into — st ‘The difference between counsel ou each side was that it was contended on the other side that that only applied up to the limit fixed to the amount of stock to be issued; but he contended that it was not restricted in such a sense. If it Was tuere was not a railroad in the State which sbould not be in the hands of @ receiver. Toe power to issue convertibie bonds had been exercised by every railrond corpora- | tion in the State that had occasion to borrow large sugns of inoney. Last year the Central Ratiroad had issued ah amount of gonvertibie bonds for the purpose of building @ railroad-where? in thetu- minion of Canada. That immaculate combination of speculators who had struck hands with Vander- Wilt had fesued convertible bonds for that purpose, having bo otuer means whatever. ‘I he capital of the New York Centra! Kallroad had been thus increased jargely from time to time. It was well known that tue Hudson River Kaiiroad had, for the | purchase of St, Joln’s Park, issued stock at | 50, beyond the amount fixed py tte charter. Not only was thie done, but it was reported to tie Stale Auditor every year by ali those railroads that { they had exercised the nt to issue convertibie bonds. These reports had D —< every year; and there never bad been until last year one word of dissent jrom any qnarter. Were they to be told now that Jay Gould was a sinner above all who dwell in New York’ Was this thing upiawtn! when dove by him and lawiul when done by Cornelius Vanderbiit and all the Presidents of the Central itail- toad, dnciuding Mr. Corning? He repudiated the Proposition as monstrons, aNd It almost seemed to bit that he might stop just there, having shown That if (here Was in that regard gin and error it was sta aud er rorthat were common to the whole community. Hic would show that their construction of the iaw was the rightone. Counsel on the other side contend that we cannot borrow money by tasuing bonds, What did counsel meau? How would any corpora- tion having negotiable securities borrow inouey ex- cept by issuing securities and selling thera th the Inarket! That is borrowing money. When the oid Hank of the United State# Nad to borrow money tt issued sterling bills ana put them in the mark: ‘That was vorrowing money, A corporation berro as an individual would by the issuance of securities and putiing thom on tae market, and the purchaser TRame wyrrower, jt is fala, however, that if you ad- mit this you putitin the power of the directors of & company to overwhelta & Corporation by the overissue of stock to ao indefinite extent. May not the directors of a company borrow money to an unlimited extent? Jay Gould or any ef the die rectors has the power to go into the market and borrow & hundred intilions, it he did it in good faith, ‘The policy of the State was undoubtedly to make thi railroad company so that the directora might dt the burden of the debt among the atoc! ds, he may capitalize the debts, and capttaiizing the debts of @ great corporation ts an operation entirely proper and highly benedicia. ‘the question of law turns on thie:—-Tas the wrte Ratiroad Company the right to issue convertible bonds. They #ay Hot, because, they say, firsi, that the Erte Railway Company has a fixed capital, and wen, having established, as (hey suppose, (hat point, tuey aay the twenty-cighih section of the general Kaliway law does aot authorize directors to issuc Com vertidle bonds except out of atock not yet issued and Bay that the issuing of such stock is unauthorized and invalid, and that the stock so issued is spurious and that receiver ahould be appointed to take charge of the property. But the Erie Talent Com. of all tho ions of the Sta no H conte ‘The oration was the Erie Rallro: 1836; then it had a the old company and of outstanding: Jaw authorized the issue of new stock to replace the old stock and to meet all the obligations of the com- pany to an indefinite amount. a Nelson—Where is that law? \eld—Your Honor will find it set forth in the section of the other Way than as we construe it, ~The directors, he contended, from the provisions of the act had the right to iague stock as they a ve stock. thet re, power was given to the directors ‘of the company by the Twenty-eighth section to issue stock in excess of the stock already provided for, whenever the exi- gencies arise mandi it, by the issuance of convertible bonds. jut suppose the law was otherwise—that their construction of the law wad err the appointment of a receiver way acter of those who make the applica’ most material to inquire into, into the history of the State Court, which he gaid was an effort on the part of Drew and others who had entered into a combination to speculate with the stock of the com- pany ‘by means of a process of the State Court. Who are the parties Soplying here? Belmont and Lucke, who are one of the affidavits with having made a bargain with Work, Schell and Drew to carry on this litigation in their in- terests. But Belmont is merely a tool on the side play that is going on—a mere insiro- ment in the hands of the tic king ia stockjobbing that stands beh the scenes, Scheil and Work, therefore, were the original con- spirators in that grant fraud. be; last spring and consummated July 2, 1863, WhabWas thay? it was an attempt which Drew himself now admits was an attempt on the part of Schell and Work to aimass colossal fortunes by moves on the stock board, which movements were to be effected by injunctions and processes in the courts as they might get them from one side or the other, Conusel then gave a history of the several suits in the Erle Mtigation, from the tirst commenced om the ith February, 1568, to the present case. Counsel proceeded to give a review of the last litigation against the Erie Railway Company carried on by Schell, who had previously, he said, as member of the State Senate, got the statute repealed which prohibited gambling in stocks, The combination by which that suit was getiled was as corrupt and flagitous as had ever been entered into. Firat, Mr. Cornelius Vanderbilt had secured hinself irom loss on the five millions of stock which he held at 70, He, Mr. Field, had geen the origiua! checks to Vanderbilt tor one million of dollars to cover his losses ag a stock speculator. Then there was ‘ive millions more of the stock of the Erie Railway taken for the Boston, nd that an application for ut—tue char- tion becomes jounsel then went Hartford and @rie Railway Company. And last there was $429,000 of the -pro| of the Erie stockholders paid over to Schell and his counsel, He would not insult the intelugence of the Court by dwelling on the infamy of the whole trans- action, That litigation was exactly the same litiga- ton as was now before the Court. It was the same controversy in every respect, ‘The same men who were then bdught oif were now striving by the kame means to obtain the same ends, It was the fight of the cormorants over the carcass. ‘There was not, he contended, on the face of the com- plaint a particle of reason for the appointment of avy receiver whatever. Tuis was the case simply of # creditor seeking to nave a receiver appointed for the purpose of making good the judgment which he might recover, There could not be a receiver except for the specific fund on which the complaint hada lien. There was no such fund here. What need was there for the appointment of a receiver? it was said on the other side that the company had acceded to it, The conan had done no such thing. It had simply waived objection to the service of the papers. It did not therepy waive any of its mghts, The com- pany now contended that the order for the receiver- ship shou'd never have been given, and thatit should not stand one hour longer. The bill was a good one for thepa: of a decision whether the stock on which the suit was brought was legal stock orspuri- ousstock. Thecompany acceded to itto that extent. If Mr. Belmont came into the suit he must come in on the allegations in Whelpley’s bill, and those alle- gations were that every doilar reccived from the sale of the convertible bonds was Properly’ and faithful, used in the repair, completion and operation of th raiiroad. Counsel for Mr. Belmont could not go be- hind that. There couf*iiot be two complainants in the same suit, each making opposite and contradic- tory allegations. The court could not touch a dollar of the money proceeding from the sale of convertibie bonds without interfering with the law of the State of New York of last session authorizing the issue of such bonds for the completion and operation of the road. There was also authority in the statute of 1847 for raliroad corporations to increase their capital stock for the purpose of putting on a double track. sixty miles of the Erte Raiiro: only a single track, and the thoney received from the issue of con- vertible bonds may have been used for that purpose. {t was not for him to say what disposition had been made of it, Wituout the expenditure of several mil- lions to relay the track of the Erie Ratlroad it could not be operated, and if the Court were now to place the road inthe hands of Mr. Davies as receiver it would be tantamount to a declaration that that great company should cease to exist. As to Mr. Belmont’s being admitted as a party plaintiff! he could not come in without ousting the jurisdiction of the Court, and as to his being admitted party defendant he could not do that withoat requiring the piaintift to alter his bill. [f Mr. Belmont came on who was (o control the suit? Was he to be allowed to jake 4 motion which his co-plaintit was not willing to make? In conciusion Mr. Field said bis ctients, the Erie Railroad Company, were very anxious to have # decision from the iederal judiciary as to the legality or illegality of its acts, “Yo thai decision they Would respectfully bow. EXPLANATION BY MR. STOUGHTON. Mr. Stoughton made some additional remarks, In explanation of which he was understood to have said as to Mr. Henry Davies having received $25,00) out of the special fund of $25,060. He under- stood that whatever was received by Mr, Davies lad been received from lus client as compensation before tle sectiement. AFFIDAVIT OF MR. HENRY E. DAVIES. In dhis connection the followme aiidavit of Mr. Davies was read and filed:— Henry B. WiAlpley vt The Eria Railway and ¢ Henry B. Davies of anid city, being duly sworn, sayn— he was employed in the controversy reterred to'In the allida- vitof Jay Goud by the firm of John Bloodgood & Co., az he nudorstood, oy bebaif of wald irm aod Messrs. Steward and Banter, ana ‘at ali the ‘compensation he received fur bis kervices (herein waa paid by said frm of John Bloodgood & aud that this deponent neyer received any moneys on ant of suid services in ‘ontroversy Irom any other person or peraons, itm, company or corporation whatever; that this deponent never Was retained or employed by waid Schell in satd controversy, and was uever consulted with or adrised with by him in reiation thereto: and this deponent further aaith that be was so employed by said irm of Joba Bloodgood & Co. on the Wth day of March fast past, and that ‘within two or three days thereaiter he received # feo from said firm, and that sinee that payment he bas not received trom any person whatever any stm of money whatever on ‘or towards depouent in said action. ments of #25000 and #429250 made by the de- iy inat, a# mentioned in. the affidavits read to this court on the motion of November inst, were wholly unknown to this deponent, and that be never heard of steh payments until be heard said afidkvite rad in this court on yesterday, and iuriher thia deponent saith not. HENRY EB. DAVIES. xy of December, 1*i8—~ Vutce, United States Commiasioner. AKOUMENT OF MR. O'CONOR, barics O'Conor closed the argument on be- Mr. Belmont. mmary of the points for which he contended. His duty, he said, wae to bring down the to be passed upon to a compass no larger than the real questions of law and fact required. He would endeavor to systematize the thiug for the ander- standing of the Court, {n the month of February, 1868, certain directors of the Erie Railway Company had caused to be issued $10,000,000 of conversible bonds. That issue tad been characterized by circu;astances of very reat atrocity. ‘The bonds were tssued and goki to @ director of the company at & very low rate, giving hima a very latwe profit, and were subsequentiy couverted into stock and sold in the market. Tue ebief actors inthe matter were Mr. Daniel Drew, Mr. Jay Gould and Mr. James F Jr., the two latter being memvers of a broker's firm in Wall street and directors of the Erie Hallway Company, ‘The question whether the company bad transcended its powers in that issue he would reserve for another part of his argument. These occurrences took place in February, 1868. Litigation ensued and tue ques- lions whether the Issue was not contraband of good manners and & gross breach of trast, and whether it was leval, had been brougit up fairly before Jadge Sutherland and Wad been folly and ably argued, And Judge Sutherland had come deliberately to the concinsion that the power did not exist and that it was, perhaps, not worth while to look into the question of the morality of the proceeding, although be intimated hts opinion on that point also, The Erie way Company appealed to the general term aud the case came on for a hearing. When the case was called up the counsel for that company moved for Jeave to aisaigs the appeal, which was resisted by hin (Mr. O'Copor), The decree below was regarded as being affirmed, Tois was a decision on a ques- tion of corporation Iaw made by the Supreme Court of the State of New York and acquiesced in by the general term, and he understood that it was the practice to recognize the decision of the Supreme Court as valid, By that dicision the issue of the $10,000,000 of convertible bonds was denounced as illegal. Snbsequently, at the last session of the Legisiatnre, the Brie Railroad Company asked to have a statute passed legalizing that issue, The Leqisiature refused to do #0, but in April, 1868, the Legisiature passed @ statute declaring that it should lawfal for the company tw apply what ever money it may have received irom that issue to the completion and operation of ‘he road. But chat act left open to foture determination by the courts the legitimacy of the stock, They were not Proceeding in this case for ‘hat lilegitimate issue, All that was said about tt waa to inform the Gourt of the history of the case in law and in fact, He proceeded now to the second stage In the matter, It appeared (hat the versous Wo Called in question Sworn the application for a receiver in” ayment of any compensation for the | He handed to the Court a | NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1868.—fRIPLE SHEET. ' him fuli the geoenetinas of the company were, about the mont of July, settled with—paid to their satisfac- tion, The reniarks nade as to the corruption of that roceeding were irrelevant to this case as they ‘were unfair to the ns concerned, ‘This brought Pp . Eldri apd Mr, Gould was elegted election, none redemption of converti- bonds. ‘stock which alarmed the stock market sod led vo the inquiry. An application was then made for the appointment of a receiver. Jay Gould then, on the 18th November, went before ir. Justice Barnard, the ble election except for the ‘mis Was the thing to be mended and approved or condemned. All this liti- tion now before your Honor has grown out ¥. this fisue of twenty millions of stock or bonds. Whether this twenty millions were issued in connection with the election that was to take place was quite tioma- terial, and whether it was applied to private pur- poses by these directors may be very yeu regarded as entirely immaterial to this inquiry. ut he thought that the evidence on this latter point was very strong that this twenty millions has been im- properly applied and that it bas been used for the private purposes of those parties; that they have it mow in their use tor these purposes, and the desperwe efforts they make to retain the contro! of these funds under tn- strumentality of the courts is conclisive evidence that it is so used by them. We charge that this twenty millions of stock was issued with reference to the election that waa subsequently to be held. But the other side triumphantly point to the fact that the election was unanimous. If your Honor please, there is a way of making én election in a Joint stock company unanimous, Ali that has to be done is to make it understood in Wal street that the present directors of the company were In a position to issue such an amount of stock as to reuder all competition useless. All that is necessary to do to acquaint the beli weathers ou ’Change that the present directors have the power to flood the market with stock and to depreciate prices and you remove all opposition. We will show your Honor that tots issue of 200,000 shares of additional stock was illegal, and that whether or not that we are entitled to this motion, Wher it was known that these 200,000 additional shares were issued Mr. Belmont filed his bill of complaint charging that this issue was Illegal and fraudulent, And that was the point which he would now discuss—whether this issue of additional stock was I ornot. It would be seen from the facts already prosenied that the Erie Railroad Company, by. its directers, had reached the extent of the. maximum of: stock to be issued allowed by the statute, Counsel thea referred to the general railroad law of 1800 and argued from it that the issuance of these additional 200,000 shares was in excess of the maximum alloyed by law, and consequentiy illegally issued. It would be the duty. of his Honor, according to the dictates of common sense and the common gules of construction, which required ‘the Court to give effect to all parts of the ekeon not to allow one part to override the rest, and in that light he confidently anticipated the Court would agree with him in. his construction of the statute, He contended that this issue of $20,000,000 of stock, even. if fairly issued—even if it bad now been @ secret and illegitimate transaction to provide these people with money to enadie them to operate on she stock market, to raise and lower the price of si to sell at high sap and to buy at low—if there was nothing of this in it it was still an illegal additiona: issue of two hun- dred thousand shares, n illegal increase of the capi- tal of the company of twenty millions beyond what the Legistature consented to alloy, But to come to the question of the receivership, your Honor will see that the night before this com- Platnt was filed Jay Gould and hia eternal confeder- ate and aitidavit associate, Fisk, had an interview with Daniel Drew. Drew came w them and said, “Gentlemen,| amsin a terrible scrape; there is a good deal of this stock under your control; I have entered into contracts for it and I will be utterly ruined un- Jess you do for me what you did iast spring—let me into your confederacy, give me some of your stock ty enable me to fulfil my ei ments, and if not I will go over to the her side.” But they concluded that Drew was too expensive an associate, that he wanted too large a share of the plunder, and: they concluded not to have anything to do with him, and the consequence was that Drew ran off and made an affidavit for us, What did they do then? They ran oif to Mcintosh, who was the ferrymaster of one of the company’s ferry boats, and got bim to draw up @ complaint in the Supreme Court setting forth that this issue of twenty millions had taken place, that it was probably illegal, and that there was great necessity for the appointment of a receiver. On an ex parte statement in Chambers, before Judge Barnard, they obtain this very remark. able order-—an order restraiuing August Belmont, and others, that they suspected might be co-operating — with Belmont, from taking any proceedings in any court whatever with regard to the transactions of the company and appointing a receiver of the moneys of the company. And who was the receiver asked for by Mcintosh bat Gould, his employer and treasurer of the com- pany—the very man that had made the false issue and by which they had obtained money by a fraud on the company or by afraud on those who had bought Us very stock. And so on this order of the 1stu of Noveniber Gould was appointed receiver. ‘This order tied up his hands, but ia two days afterwards, ou the isth, he goes before Judge Bar- burd again and obtains a imoduication of the order authorizing him to use the funds of the company, to buy up the stock of the company to the extent of twenty miliions of dotiars, and thus giving privilege to deal with the stock of the company. And if there was one thing more than another, more noipermissabie on the part of corporations, it is this dealmg aad purchas- Ing in their own stock, ‘There are various statutes prohibiting this practice, 3 ex parte order was a gr08s Violation Of sound policy and of corporate duty—a point blank violation of the statute forbid ding corporations from buying or dealing in their own stock. And it stirred the desperate efforts of these men to continue in the control of the money; it ‘ed that the governing action of their hearts was ure and control the management of these $20,000,000, Counsel ciosed a@ lengthy and very abie argument, contending that the order of Judge Blatchford was obtained by collusion and fraud, pay- ing, at the same itme, a high compliment to th purity and integrity of Judge Blatchford’s official character and conduct, which, he said, was above all suspicion and all reproach tn this matter, Having concluded bis argument counsel handed bis abstract of law points to the Court, Judge Nelson—Let counsel hand papers. A mass of papers was then placed ou the bench, and thns ended tue legal arguiment in the great Erie case In the United States courts. Judge Nelsen re- served opinion. in all their Order of Judge Balecom of the Supreme Court KEnjoining the Directors of the Erie Road from Transferring the Property to Auy Persou Other than the Receiver to Be Appointed by the Court. BINGHAMTON, N. Y., Dec, 1, 1868. Justice Balcom, sitting at a spéctial term of the Supreme Court in this city to-day, granted an order, on application of the Attorney General of the State, enjoming the Erie Railway Company, by tte directors, from delivering or transferring auy property to ® receiver or other person other than the receiver to be cppotines by the Court, and nawing Mr. Giles W. Hotchkiss, of this city, as referee, to take testimony of all matters, transac- tions, &c., of the company, and to file his report with the vidence taken by him with this court. is action sustains the directors of the road against all other persous. The Alleged Viight of the Erle Directors— Letier of James Fisk, Jrs Porr Jervis, N. Y., Dec. 1, 1868, To Tns Eprron ov THR HERALD: Retarning home from a journey undertaken in re- lation to the afairs of the rolling mill of the Erie Railway Company 1 am astonished, on taking up your paper this morning, to find that lam charged with having secretly carried off $8,000,000 of the company’s money. I presume it is to the vivid imagination of Mr. Kennedy, combined with the vigorous pens of the reporters of the press, that I am indebted for this enormous calumny. The facta are simply these:--I left New York for the pur- pose I have stated without twenty dollars in my pocket and without a doilar’s worth of securities of any name or nature except the threadbare gar- ments which [ usually take with me when travelling, Although upon an errand of mercy I did not teel justified in encroaching upon the sacred hours of the Sabbath, espectaily since my counsel Would not use that day to finish up my alidavits. According! made arrangements to cae as early on Monday morning a8 possible. Meeting a gentleman with an enormous roll of papers which I could not read and he declined to read to me, I carried them back for examination. Seeing about seventy-five o' gon- tiemen in waitin, appearing to have indie equally large, I feared that there would not be room in od car to carry all the gifts of my friends; and, Uke Genwral Grant and unuke my (eioud Judge Davies, a being indiaposed to shake hands with so many, I do- clot to forego any public demonstration and to take my car aia point further up the road uskaown éo my many kind friends in waiting. The money of the Erie Company is uot and has not been under my charge, but is now in the treasury, where it ought to ‘and has been since the present Board of Directors ere entrusted with the charge of the corporation’ ‘The rival receivers can get at the now as they could before I left to ened by & meaew to run own money or tuat of any one ren ae J. FISK, Jr. i either The Erie Railroad Office. office of the Erie Ratlway Company, in Wess street, was closed ye sterday to all who were not either in the ring themselves or in the confidence of the leaders of the inner circle of sharpers. The outer door ausawered to a gentle pressure of the shoulder, but inside that an iron gate confronted the visitor, and an impertinent boy, who seemed to have been am apt pupil of bis mysterious instructor, grinned from between the bars, and appeared to enjoy the novelty of his situation in a high degree, Any leading ques- tions asked were met by anything but a polite re- fusal; and five or six fellows, who strutted inside like bears similarly caged, stared impa- dently, and gave short, offensive answers to all inquiries whenever the boy siteady mentioned failed tb inspire eg A and one of these fellows ap} ‘80 hefvously anx! to prevent the entrance of any one whose face t! could not that it was evident that ofa thrashing for their uncalled for pore! enoe haunted them as much as the orders of tue o: Hy ‘The treasurer of the oMce was sent for py gentle- man who called in the pagralng, but wat nh he quickly appeared at the iron door, he would not wait @ moment to answer a ease. but digap- with as much specd a3 if he had seen @ spook, Inder these circumstances it was bie tO ob> tain any information of the movements tnside or to jearn the whereabouts of the principals in the Ene game of Diludt. Ps Business in the transfer effice, which has been re- moved from Pine street to Broadway, went on as usual yesterday. The polite clerk who attends to the transier of stock not know anything of the Krie war and appeared to appreciate to the utmost. the value of ‘the maxim that “where ignorance is bliss tis foliy to be wise.’? MISCELLANEOUS COURTS. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT. The Fallorton Indictment. Mr. Charles O'Conor, at the request of Mr. Clarence A. Seward, one of the counse! for Mr. William Ful- lerton, applied to Judge Nelson for the postpone- ment for a week of the time of pleading to the in dictment in the case of United States va, Willam Fullerton, ‘The Court—How is that, Mr. District Attorney? * Mr. Courtney—Although | am prepared to go on, your Honor, with the case, I haye no objéction to make to the application for postponement. if ‘coums, sel intends to move to quash the indictment or to demur to it { would wish that the argament ini thas case should be heard by your Honor. ‘ Judge Nelson—That is impossible, You will have another Judge here. | j ‘There being no objection, the time to plead on the the partof thedefendant was postponed for a week! ‘the Court then, at ten minutes to seven O'Clook,) adjourned to tls morning. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. The Tradeswen’s Bank Defalcation—Verdice Against Garner C. Baker. The United States vs, Garner C. Baker.—The jury who held this case retired after the Judge’s charge Monday evening about four o’clock, and at a late hour Teported that it was not likely they would agrees on & vePdict. They were accordingly locked up all night, .} and yesterday morning, at the regular hour,they came + into court with a verdict of guilty on three of the six counts contained in the indictment. These counts involve the gravamen of the offence charged+-em- bezzlement—and subject the defendant to five years’ imprisonment, '* “| ‘The Case of John Arnold. . The United States vs. John Arnola.—The defendant was receiving teller of the Tradesmen’s National Bank and was indicted at the same timo as Baker. ‘The case stands next for trial on the criminal calea- dar. ‘the Cour, called it yesterday morning, but the United States District Attorney, Mr. Couriney, said he would not move it for trial then. ‘The case stands over for the present. UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS’ COURT. fhe Whiskey Conspiracy—Arrest and Commite ment of an Escaped Witness in the Case. Before Commissioner Stilweil, Jt will be remembered that in July last a number of men were arrested on a charge of having com- mitted perjury in making false statements Collector Batley, at the instance, as alleged, of Alvah Biaisdell, a distiller, then under indictment for having defrauded the government of the tax om whiskey, The establishmeut of Mr. Blaisdell was seized and condemned about that time. One of the men against whom warrapts were issued for per- jury was James es alias Fuller, who, after being arrested, mace his escape fromthe Deputy Marshall, and Who was not seen since till yesterday afternoon, when Mr. Taliman and other officers met him in@Chambers street and at once made an attempt to take him into custody. The officers stated that a desperate resistance ensued, and thas the accused made his escape into the building No. 4 Chambers street, after the officers, as they alleged, had fired several shots at him, He was taken before Commissioner Stilwell oa the charge. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. New Calendar—Notice to the Bur. A new calendar for the trial of issues of fact for the year 1869 will be made, and notes of issue there- for must be filed fn all cases on or before the 19th inst, stating the number of the cause on the present calendar, and, if reserved generally, the time when, If filed after the above date the cause will lose ite place on the calendar, ‘The day calendar for February term will be made uses entitled to be placed thereon, to correspond the present general caiendar. NATUANLEL JARVIS, Clerk. DeceMBER 1, 1568. of with THE GAME TRADE OF CHICAGO, It# Present and Prospective Extent. {From the Chicago Times, Nov. 23.] There are in Chicago about a dozen wholesale firms, by whom hunters are kept in regular Sorae. meut to furnish them with game of every sort, from the baifalo or the “bar” down to the squirrel or the snipe, and by whom some hundreds of retatl dealers ail over the city are supplied. In addition to these there are quite an army of commission merchants to whom game ig consigned from the country, and who also furnish supplies both to wholesale and retail dealers, the former resorting to them peinci pally when they have an emergency to fill up orders from the East. A large body of men are thus enabied to follow huuting as an occupation in the Western ‘States, whither the game ia being gradually driven by che steady advance of civilization. Many farmers also engage in the lucrative sport, taking a circuit within reach of their homes at night, and often bag- ging @ sufficient quantity of birds to make their day’ shooting a profitable occupation. The hunter's call Ing 1,-of course, most remunerative in the winter months, when # heavy fall of snow renders them more easy to be trapped. The region from which our game dealers obtain the bulk of their supplies comprehends the States of Titinois, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana. The two first named States abound in prairie chickens, Wild ducks and quatis; and those constitute, at this time of the year, the staple com- modity in our markets under the head of game, ex- clusive of venison. The shooting season begins in the middie of Aagust, but not much is done comuner- cially until the cold Weather sets in, when the birds ure more accessible and the wholesale traders here can venture on shipping large consignments to the Eastern markets, The abundance in which these birds are found and the enormous quantitics in which they are shot and sent in to supply the laxu- rious tables of Chicago citizens may almost be in- ferred from the fact that two skilfal and fortunate “boys” from oth of September and ber, this year, ursuing thelr avocation alo the lime of the Llinols Central Rail supplied to one wholesale firm in this city 1,4 quails, which they themselves had shot. Wisconsin and Michigan are the principal sources of supply for venison; ri sends us prairie chickens, quails and wild turkeys, and Indiana likewise furnishes ducks and quails in consideravie abundance. Such luxuries as bear and opossum meat must be looked for farther Weat. The probable supplies of prairie chickens to the Chicago market since the commencement of sh will have been not less than from 25,000 to 30,000, quails about an equal number and of wild ducks be- tween 2,000 and 3,000. rae as these figures appear they are in all likelihood under rather than over the actual quantity received and disposed of in the Oht- market. When the Pacific Rauroad 1s 0 an immense farther expausion of the game trade of Chicago may be looked for, Already es in Cheyenne are making arrangements with some of the Chicago dealers for the consigament of Supplies from that locality, OALwvoRrNta HAS No Cause to GuoMRLE.—Who- ever else may gruimble about the heavy expenditures of the federal government Californians suould keep still Their mouths ought tobe closed. Congress gives ten dollars to California for every one that It takes. I has given about 60,000,000 scree tte ne the ifle Ratlroads, loaned $60,000, years to the middie Pacific road, offered 100,000,000 Acres of land on this coast as a free gift to homestend settiers, established steamer lines to China aod Hon- oluiu, ond given the mines to the people in posses sion of them. Is it not rather steep in the recipien' of all these favors to how! about the extravagacce Congress and about tue evilg of radical rulot—Ala Uulforaia, Non, a