Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-08-16

! and 9Th inst The election resulted infhe
selection Of the old board which is as fol-
lows, each candidate receiving the number
Of votes opposite his name:
NJ Burns
Sam Watkins. 1913
| w. +. 49,
| j. M Murrell
/ a. Nelson. -.....'-. ...--.....---.-4}23
l ). y. hnowles......-.........-. .......-.4343
Afls 1913
r. A. ..33
Len W 1913
John A. 3
John 3 44S9
Ed per..-'.-'.'----.--.- ..45l3
= 33t5
A. M
1. IL. 1905
Incorporation ticket composed ofsome of
our most worthy and influential citizens
was defeated by a vote of 225. During
| the election a controversy arose on the
question whether or not the votes
Of the city Of Charleston and
the Georgia Railroad Banking Company
should be received. This opened a wide
field for debate, which was participated in
blythe Hon. Ed. Ewing and Col. Colyar
against the reception, and by Ex-Governor
Brown and Judge King, of Georgia, and
Major Willis, of Charleston, in favor of
receiving the votes. 1t was evident that
these votes would decide the election, and
the champions of both sides displayed
much zeal and no small amount of legal
learning. In order that our readers may
understand the point of controversy in ref
erence to the Charleston and Georgiastock,
we will state, as tersely as possible, the ar
guments of the counsel of both sides. The
city of Charleston, during the construction
Of the Nashville and Chattanooga railroad,
proposed through its City Council to take
$500 600 worth Of stock in the road, on
certain conditions One of the conditions
was, that Charleston was to have the APP
pointment of tleO directors on the board,
and that the Georgia Railroad and Bank
ing Company took $3.50, 900 worth of stock
on condition that they should have the
right to appoint one director on the
beard. This contract between the
Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad
Company on the one part, and
the city of Charleston and the Georgia
Railroad and Banking Company on the
other, Was ratified by an act Of the Ten
nessee Legislature after the contract was
made. According to the original contract,
the city of Charleston was to be represented
by only two directors, and the Georgia
Railroad Company was TO only have one
This was a special contract between the
three corporations, and should have been
carried out in good faith. The $4,000
of stock taken by these corporations, by
special contract, was only TO be represented
BY three directors. The same amount of
stock distributed among thousand stock
holders would control, perhaps, twice the
number of directors. Could the city of
Charleston and the Georgia Railroad and
Banking Company, by a subdivision and
distribution of their stock to a large num-
Der of stockholders, give the holders the
rightto cast more votes than they had BY the
original contract with the Nashville and
Chattanooga railroad Do the purchases
Of the stock, owned by the city Of Char
lesion and the Georgia Railroad and Bank
ing Company, stand in the same relation
to the Nashville and Chattanooga railroad
az though they had been original stock
holders? Or did they purchase their stock
Of those corporations subject to such re-
striCtions and equities as were imposed by
the original contract between the COM
tracing parties? The consideration given
to those corporations fer taking S759 eco
have three directors Would nnI aus
management of that stock, by whicG j.
would elect more than three directors 5e a
violation of the spirit and intent of the
contract?
Per Confrd-It is argued that the city of
Charleston and the Georgia Railroad and
Banking Company have been accustomed
heretofore to attend the annual elections Of
the directory and cast their votes as other
stockholders, and that this usage has become
a law; that the Nashville and Chattanooga
railroad, by allowing this stock to be rep
resented aud voted in their annual cleo
tions for "A series Of years, tacitly admitted
their right to be admitted now. A nice
question here arises as to whether a plain
legal right is lost by not exercising it,
when there are no limits az to the time
in which it should be exercised. Did the
Nashville and Chattanooga railroad, by
permitting those corporations to cast their
votes in former elections, yield their legal
right 10 the enforcement of the original
contract? This we regard as fair and
candid statement Of the legal points made
by the attorneys on both sides of this unfor
tunate controversy. We have given these
as the legal propositions without the slight
est feelings of prejudice, as we were not
personally interested in the result either
way.
MEETING AT THE ST. CLOUD OF THE ANTI
BURNS TICKET.
Gov. J. L. Brown nominated Hon. ]. p.
King, director appointed by the Georgia
Railroad and Banking Company, as Chair
man, and Major Z. Wills was appointed
Secretary.
The directors appointed by the city of
Charleston, Major Wills, and Henry Cobia,
appeared and took their seats in the
board.
The following directors were present;
Thomas II. Galloway, of Cleveland;
John NJ. Bass, of Davidson county; Gov.
Joseph E. Brown, of Georgia; Benjamin
May, of Georgia VIM. Hunter Smith, OF
Rutherford county; Edward L. Jordan, Of
Rutherford county David II. c. Spence,
of Rutherford county; Thomas z. White
side, of Bedford county A. ID. Lands, OF
Bedford county; William S. Higgins, OF
Coffee county; A. +. Patton, of Grundy
county f. w. Cole of Georgia; John +.
Anderson, of Franklin and Marion.
Gov Brown nominated Z. w, Cole
ITSSluCul Oh the DOaTu loI titS SAShAilE
twelve months
A ballot was then taken, and Mr.. Cole
was unanimously elected.
On motion of Mr. Whitesides, w. A.
Gleaves was elected Secretary of the board.
Mr.. Spence moved that an Executive
Committee of three, composed of Messrs.
Thos. II. Galloway, Whitesides and Jor-
dan, with Mr. Galloway as chairman.
The Board of Directory instructed the
Executive Committee TO make formal de-
mand on Mr.. Burns and his directory for
possession OF the road and its equipments.
II this is refused by Mr.. Burns then legal
steps will be taken to dispossess Mr.. Burns.
Three of the committee appointed to wait
on Col. Hamill bad an interview with him
and report that Col. Hamill demands that
the $9s000 Of interest now due shall be
paid BY the Goth, and the net income Of
the road shall be paid over to the United
Ctafes government in foundation of the