THE FARMER'S WAR AGAINST MONOPOLIES. 153 



three receivers had. as yet been appointed, he was cer- 

 tainly entitled to appoint another. It was perfectly 

 clear to him that it was his duty to enjoin the defend- 

 ant corporation from delivering the possession of its 

 road, or of any of its assets, to either of the receivers 

 already appointed ; it was equally clear that the cor- 

 poration would be obliged to deliver them to any re- 

 ceiver he might appoint. He was not prepared to 

 name a receiver just then, however, though he inti- 

 mated that he should not hesitate to do so if necessary. 

 So he contented himself with the appointment of a 

 referee to look into matters, and, generally, enjoined 

 the directors from omitting to operate the road them- 

 selves, or from delivering the possession of it to ' any 

 person claiming to be a receiver.' 



" This raiding upon the agricultural judges was not 

 peculiar to the Erie party. On the contrary, in this 

 proceeding it rather followed than set an example ; for 

 a day or two previous to Mr. Fisk's hurried journey, 

 Judge Peckham, of Albany, had, upon papers identical 

 with those in the Belmont suit, issued divers orders, 

 similar to those of Judge Balcom, but on the other 

 side, tying up the Erie directors in a most astonishing 

 manner, and clearly hinting at the expediency of an 

 additional receiver to be appointed at Albany. The 

 amazing part of these Peckham and Balcom proceed- 

 ings is, that they seem to have been initiated with 

 perfect gravity, and neither to have been looked upon 

 as jests, nor intended by their originators to bring the 

 courts and the laws of New York into ridicule and 

 contempt. Of course the several orders in these cases 

 were of no more importance than sa -much waste 

 paper, unless, indeed, some very cautious counsel may 



