Central Pacific Railroad Company Lawsuits

[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

[top right corner:] 5

Read [double underlined] the preamble stating the purpose of the formation of the Trans-Continental pool.

Then reply to the positions assumed by Brown in his letter.

Sustain the position of Stubbs as the true positions.

Who are the parties to the Gould-Huntington contract "names them" [underlined].

The same persons who are interested in the pool from New Orleans to El Paso are the same as control the Missouri Pacific and its connection, and who although sharing in the traffic brought by C. P. Huntington from New York on the Morgan steamers and delivered to the pool at New Orleans seeking to divert a portion of such traffic by taking freight at New York or San Francisco on the trunk lines to be delivered to the Missouri Pacific at St Louis and then delivered to the S.P [Southern Pacific] at El Paso and in this case keep such traffic from the Gould-Huntington pool.