Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1860-03-23
CHEsAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL.
For the Montgomery County Sentinel.

For the Montgomery County Sentinel.
Mr.. EDIToR: In the last communca-
ton of your correspondent 3D." find
a lengthy quotation from the opinion Of
the Attorney General of Virginia, of
which the following sentence is especially
commended to our attention: Is it con-
sistent with good faith that creditors,
aciM a lien upon the repenaes Of a compa-
ny, subject only to one condition, should
be managed by the Commissioners of
Maryland :" Now I was not aware be-
fore that such was the fact, nor do sup.
pose the Attorney General intended to
convey that idea-though / must say the
whole citation is rather murky at best.
Its Introduction, however, is evidently
brought forward for the purpose of forth
flying the main object Of "B," which
is to induce the Legislature to pass an Act
for the benefit of that class Of creditors
who hold the preferred bonds of the
Company, and virtually to repudiate the
claims of other creditors who are equally
meritorious aud entitled to protection
"B" likens my opposition to that
measure to man fighting shadow. .
The smile may be appropriate, but
unlike it in one respect--for usually,
in combats Of that character, nobody
is hurt; but, as the story goes, an
unlucky wight, III passing within reach
of my random blows, was SO unto.rtunate
as to receive their expenditure against
bis own ribs with such force and effect
as to cause him to cry out to his friend
the Attorney GeneraD for help.
=" b" further says: {" was not aware
that the hill to which 'P' objects is be-
fore the Legislature" Well, suppose it
was not; but does not every body know
that the Attorney General of Virginia,
accompanied by committee of the cor
porate authorities of Alexandria and the
District cities recently visited Annapolis,
and carried with them that very bill, for
the purpose of urging its passage upon
the Legislature.
b" in continuation, says: !" under
stand that the McKaig bill is tue same
that was agreed upon at convention of
the creditors of the canal, held in the
city Of Baltimore last summer, at which
the scrip-holders largely preponderated,
and it is presumed they understood their
own business" &c. Now, all have to
say to that, is, that have seen and con-
versed with several of that class Of cred
itors, some of whom reside in Montgom-
cry county, and they considered the Nc
Kaig bill in the form in which it was
reported to the Senate, as even more OBJ
jectionablc than the one against which my
criticisms have been more particularly
directed.
BIZ chargesme with inconsistency,
for having at one time accepted as correct
bis estimates of the Indebtedness of the
canal, and afterwards characterizing them
as oxtravagant. admit. that in my re-
ply to his first communication did al
lude to his estimates as probably mathe-
matically correct, but | then doubted. as
Lstilldo, the basis upon which he founded
them, inasmuch as he calculated interest
on the sioch subscribed by the State, as
if the same had been loan. was per-
fectly aware that this subscription Of stock
was made preferred, upon which the
company guaranteed Dividend Of 6 per
cent, (it might just as we'll have been
500, but objected to considering it as
loan merely because the company had
guaranteed such specified dividend.
Now when one individual or party
loans another money at any legal per
cent. his profit is confined to the rate of
interest named in the bond, and he can
by no possibility claim more but let me
ask, would not the State of Maryland
have been entitled, and could she not
have claimed pro rata increase of dioi-
bends on her stock. over and above the
per cent, guaranteed, provided her in
vestment had yielded greater per cent
age than what was actually guaranteed
to her? She certainly would. | cannot
see, therefore, how the subscription Of
stock in the canal can be called loan in
any sense Of the term; and it was on this
ground | considered the amount of in.
terest computed on the $5.163, 724, as
not forming part of the actual expendi-
tnre or loss by the State in the canal,
and that such subscription might well be
viewed rather in the light Of an appro-
priation towards the construction of the
Chesapeake and Ohio canal than loan
to it.
But this is not material to the issue,
and again repeat the enquiry: Where
is the justice Of legislating to protect one
class Of creditors, whilst claims of an
older date, and equally meritorious, are
substantially unprovided for 4? That is Tie
question, ard to any bill Of such char
acter ! am unchangeably opposed.
P.
ENcAMpMENT OF POLITICIANS. The
Republicans Of Hartford, Connecticut,