Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1868-12-01
CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILROAD.
ANNUAL MEETING.
CONTEST FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
Preliminary Skirmishing.

CONTEST FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
Preliminary Skirmishing.
WICKHAM ELECTED PRESIDENT.
NEW DIRECTORS ELECTED.
The annual meeting of the stockholders of
the Chesapeake and Ohio railroad was held in
the hall of the House of Delegates on Thurs
day last.
Colonel Fontaine called the meeting to order
at quarter to II clock, and nominated Mr.
Nicholas K. Trout as chairman of the meet
ing. He seemed to be elected with only few
dissenting voices.
OBJECTION MADE
j. q. Paxton, Of Rockbridge, objected to
the proceeding, as II CLOCK was the time ad-
vertlsed tor this meeting to assemble.
Colonel Fontaine said that they would test
whether the meeting would organize at this
time by putting the name Of Mr.. Trout before
the house again. He was again unanimously
elected. Here great confusion ensued. Mr..
Paxton called for order, and objected to the
proceeding.
Order being restored, Mr.. Paxton announced
that Mr.. Trout was not in the house, and he
| therefore nominated Mr.. John Wood, Jr., of
Albemarle, for chairman.
The motion was put, and by himself de-
clared voted down.
A scale vote being called for, confusion again
ensued, several members claiming the floor at
the same time
Mr.. Paxton called upon Mr. Wood to take
the chair.
Mr.. James Lyons: No, don't you.
Mr.. Paxton: Yes, sir take the chair.
MIR. Lyons: If he does, he is not the man |
take him to be-
MIR. WOOD TAKES THE CHAIR.
chair advanced and said that no one had been
put in nomination in opposition and he would
| therefore take the chair
MIR. Lyons again objected to his taking the
chair when he had received only one or two
votes
Mr.. Paxton then asked if the State and city
were represented in this meeting. Some one
answered that they were.
Mr.. Saunders said he held that the city was
not regularly and properly represented by
proxies.
Mr.. Paxton again called for scale vote, and
asked if the State and city were represented. =
He was answered in the affirmative.
| Mr.. Patrick Henry Aylett, of Richmond,
said "You (Mr. Wood) are in the chair in
gross violation of the wishes of nine tenths of
the persons present. This is the first instance
In railroad meetings in Virginia where a vote
was desired to be taken for chairman by scale,
but always by cica vooe, and you have only re-
celved one vote. and yet claim that you are the
legal chairman
1t was then announced that Mr.. Trout was
in the house. and he was loudly called for to
take the chair. He advanced, but Mr.. Wood
refused to yield
MR.. TROUT TAKES A CHAIR TOO
Mr.. Trout took chair near the stand. Mr..
Aylett said to Mr.. Wood, 'You may hold the
chair as long as you please, but | will put the
vote. -
Mr.. T. was again elected, with only few
dissenting voices
Mr. Wood then asked leave to make a per-
sonal explanation He said that Colonel Fon-
tame had called the meeting to order some ten
or fifteen minutes before the time. He knew
there were some proxies who would vote for
him, and they were not in the house at the
time The State and city proxies would vote
for him, which was large majority.
Colonel johnson here interrupted him, and
asked him to allow him few minutes. He
yielded, and Colonel johnson said it was a
| time honored custom for the stockholders to
assemble at II o'clock. 1t is true that this
meeting was called to order little before that
| time, but it is now striking II, and now NOM
Mr.. Trout was again elected.
MIR. Wood said the gentleman asked the
courtesy of being allowed to speak, but had not
returned that courtesy. He has taken the OPP
pOrtunity to GUST him from this chair.
| Colonel johnson insisted that, having been
elected by majority of the stockholders, Mr..
Trout was entitled to the chair.
| Colonel Hartman appealed to both candidates
to withdraw, in order to prevent further diff
Guilty.
Colonel Cabel, of Richmond, desired that a
committee now be appointed to ascertain
whether quorum was present.
Mr.. James Lyons, Of Richmond, addressing
Mr.. Trout as chairman of the meeting, gave
his views ON 'the situation. He was aston
ished at the gravity with which MIR. Wood
stood up and advocated his claims to the chair.
That gentleman claimed that he had been
elected by the stockholders and proxies because
the city and State had agreed to vote for him.
How did he know who were the proxies either
of city or State until the claimants had sub
mitted their claims to the proper tribunal. For
his part, he intended to protest against the
city's being allowed to vote at all. But if the
stockholders decided that she could vote, he
would acquicsce, as in duty bound. In conclu-
sion, he insisted upon the right of Mr.. Trout
to the chair. If law and order are to prevail,
Mr.. Trout is chairman; if not we have no bus
mess here
a CONTEST FOR THE FLOOR.
Colonel Fontaine addressing MIR. Trout
Mr.. Chairman
Judge Bond addressing Mr. Wood) Mr..
Chairman
Mr. Trout Colonel Fontaine has the floor.
Judge Bond will come to order.
Mr.. Wood: The gentleman from Richmond
! Judge Bond) will proceed. He has the floor.
Judge Bond: | will not give way unless the
Chair decides me out of order.
! Mr.. Trout The gentleman must take his
| seat
| Colonel Fontaine I only wish to make a
personal explanation.
Judge Bond speaking at the same time):
insist upon my right to be heard
Both chairman here raped, but for several
minutes the two claimants of the floor con-
tinued to speak amid cries of ''order" and the
raps of the chairmen. No one could tell what
either was driving at
| At last Judge Bond held his peace for mo-
ment, and Colonel Fontaine was heard to re-
mark that something had been said about a
snap judgment. There was none on his part.
| Never before had he known an instance in
which the President Of the corporation was not
accorded the courtesy Of nominating the chair
man of the meeting. His watch was faster
| than the clock of this hall, but he knew of no
| law prescribing that stockholders should be
governed by particular timepiece. Besides,
there was large assemblage of stockholders
! anxious and impatient to proceed to business,
and they had the right to do it. There had
been no "snap Judgment"