THE FARMER'S WAR AGAINST MONOPOLIES. 143 



August Belmont, who was supposed to represent large 

 foreign holders. The petition set forth at length the 

 alleged facts in the case, and was supported by the affi- 

 davits of Mr. Drew and others. Mr. Drew apparently 

 did not inform the counsel of the manner in which he 

 had passed his leisure hours on the previous day ; had 

 he done so, Mr. Belmont's counsel probably would have 

 expedited their movements. The injunction was, how- 

 ever, duly signed, and, doubtless, immediately served. 



" Meanwhile Messrs. Gould and Fisk had not been 

 idle. Applications for injunctions and receiverships 

 were a game which two could play at ; arid long expe- 

 rience had taught these close observers the very great 

 value of the initiative in law. Accordingly, some two 

 hours before the Belmont application was made, they 

 had sought no less a person than Mr. Justice Barnard, 

 caught him, as it were, either in his bed or at his break- 

 fast, whereupon he had held a lit de justice, and made 

 divers astonishing orders. A petition was presented in 

 the name of one Mclntosh, a salaried officer of the Erie 

 road, who claimed also to be a shareholder. It set 

 forth the danger of injunctions and of the appointment 

 of a receiver, the great injury likely to result there- 

 from, etc. After due consideration on the part of Judge 

 Barnard, an injunction was issued, staying and restrain- 

 ing all suits, and actually appointing Jay Gould re- 

 ceiver, to hold and disburse the funds of the company 

 in accordance with the resolutions of the Board of 

 Directors and the Executive Committee. This certainly 

 was a very brilliant flank movement, and testified not 

 less emphatically to Gould's genius than to Barnard's 

 law ; but most of all did it testify to the efficacy of the 

 new combination between Tammany Hall and the Erie 



