600 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �ant, through its president, still insisted upon ail the tcrms and conditions prescribed by his letter of June 26th, and would make no concession whatever, except that instead of a Personal examination of the contents of safes and elicsts, by his express officers or agents,, the Adams Express agents might present a written statement of the contents of the safes and chests, to the end that freight might be charged at the defend- ant's' local scheduled rates upon each parcel, instead of upon the aggregate woight of the safes and chests with the packed parcels therein ; that to prevent the breaking up of the busi- ness of the Adams Express Company, upon that line, which would necessarily resuit from any material ipterruption of its business, it was compelled, for the time being, to submit to the terms exacted by the defendant ; that the terms imposed by the defendant are so onerous and oppressive as to render it impossible for the Adams Company to continue permanently to do business over the line, in compliance with them. The bill charges that it is the settled purpose of the defendant, either by its direct arbitrary aet, or indirectly by the imposi- tion of such unequal and oppressive terms as will, in effect, be prohibitory, to break up the business of the Adams Express Company and to exclude that company from its line of road. In addition to the relief praj^ed by the original bill, the sup- plemental bill, among other things, prays that the defendant may be required to transport the express matter of the Adams Company at reasonable rates of freight; that it may be required to make a reasonable rebate or reduction from its general rates, on account of the accessorial service performed for itself by the Adams Company, and that it may be enjoined from demanding an examination of the contents of the safes and chests of the Adams Company, or from demanding a statement of said contents. �The bill, and the amendment and supplement, vrere each ver- ified by affidavit. Upon the filing of the original bill a tempo- rary restraining order was granted by me, and it was ordered that the defendant show cause, on the seventeenth day of May, 1880, why a provisional or preliminary injunction shouldnot issue according to the prayer of the bill. On the day last ����
