The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-11-29
Huntinedon's proposition was the fairest,

Huntincdon's proposition was the fairest,
the safest. and the best.
Mr.. William Skeen thought the stock
holders did not yet understand the Hunt
ingdon proposition. The New York gen
tlemcn proposed to promise 81 100000 by
the 1st of May next. After that is done,
they bind themselves Only to use their best
efforts to sell the bonds of the company.
This is all they promise, and for this con-
Sideration and their skill, power, and intlu-
eDce. the present owners are TO pay an
enormous sum and allow the road to pass out
Of their hands forever. But while it would
pass out Of the hands of the present owners,
the present president (as vice-preSdent(,
directors, and attorney, would he more
fortunate. II would be run in the interests
Of Wall street, and Richmond would hardly
be more than q way-sitIe station. On the
other hand, if the contract with Smith {:
Co. could be effected, Richmond, Norfolk,
and the whole Of Virginia. would be built
ND, and the Chesapeake and Ohio railroad
would become the great Appian way which
we have been led to expect ii would be. He
besonght the proxies Of the City Of Rich
mond and state Of Virginia at leaStto pause
before confirming contract likely to be so
disastrous in its result.
After Mr.. Skcen concluded, Mr.. Cha
honn. of Richmond. called the previous
question. but the call was not sustained.
Mr.. Lyons again spoke III favor Of the
minority report.
Mr.. Page moved the pending question,
but scaled vote being called by Cir. Lyons,
withdrew the motion.
Mr.. =. II. Aylett followed Mr.. Lyons in
support Of the minority report. He called
fhC attention Of the stockholders to the fact
that those who had been the warmest friends
Of the company when the apparition Of a
bogus company in West Virginia, di>puting
our way to the Ohio, arose are now the
supporters Of Smith &; Co. He claimed that
the contract with McGinnis & Co. was yet
in force, and if that proposed with Hun
tin%don 81 Co. were carried out, it would
lead to one Of the greatest lawsuits of the
age.
Mr.. Baldwin interrupted Mr.. Aylett to
say that the powers Of McGinnis d Co. a>
agents of the company had been suspended
by the President for months past.
Mr.. Aylett, reSuming, commented Sc
Terely on the failure OF the authorities to
notify the stockholders on the first day of the
meeting fthe receipt OF a telegram announc.
ing the arrival Of Mr. Carter in New York,
and that he was en- route to Richmond. He
defended Mr.. Carter from the inSinuation
that he was here on q wild-goose Grand
and claimed that he was rs we'll backed az
the New Workers, and that there was every
reason to believe that he would do more
Tor the company. He doesn't charge 49,.
1O0.0 900 for his skill. nor barter for delay,
nut says for 25,000,G00 in bonds he will pay
$, 900, eco in cUrency-not at some lndeti
mite future time, but within six months
The other parties present no evidence OF
their determination to push the road t.
early completion. They offer only the skill
Of Wall street and what. in view Of the
panic Of but yesterday, and the numerous
Whims and caprices of Wall street spcCul:l.
tons, is the skill of Wall street worth:
With regard to the mcontradicted init,
nation Of Mr.. Skeen that if the arrangement
with Huntingdon & Co. is consummated
the president and the present directory
would be indefinitely retainedin power, Mr.
Aylett said, in concluding his remarks, that
he confessed to have no hankerin@, no taste,
Tor such result. On the contrary, such Z
result was, in his opinion rs n stakeholder
greatly to he deplored. He had looked :or.
ward with great pleasure to the time when
the officers forced upon the company by the
military should be ousted, and that this
would be the result when we have fail
crack at them did not admit Of doubt.
When Mr.. Aylctt closed his remarks, or
|
question was ordered and 4 scaled vote
ralicn Oh the motion to adopt the minority
report: which resulted in IFS rejection.
The state Of Virginia and City of Rich
mond voted in the negative.
Mr.. Skccn objected to the vote of the
City of Richmond on the ground that The
city is not stakeholder.
The Chair decided the objection out o
order. rs the Committee on Proxies hat
reported the City OF Richmond entitled TO:
certain number Of votes, and as the rcpor
had been unanimously adopted.
The majority report was then adopted
The State of Virginia and City of Richmond
voting in the affirmative.
On motion of Colonel Baldwin, the fol
| lowing persons were elected directors tol
the ensuing year:
C.P. Huntingdon. \. 4. Lowe, William
Il. Aspinwan, Plny Fisk, David Stewart
Jonas G. Clark, William B. Hatch, II. Chcste
Parsons, John EcholS, Williams {. Wick
ham, and Joseph K. Anderson, All but th'
three last named are citizens of New York
md the appointments were made in accord
tnce with the contract Just ratified.
The meeting then, ut u o'clock P. NJ.
adjourned sine die.