Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1871-01-14
Argument Of Francis l.. Smith. Esq,

burg Railroad, before Commttee OF TIE
Legislature:
mr. Chairman and Gentlemen Of the Com
mittee:-It is subject Of congratulatlon that
we are at last beginning to see a prospect OF
the conclusion of this lengthy, and to you
doubtless, tedious matter. The whole proceed
ing has been remarkable. 1t appeared that,
without specific charges, distinguished mem
Der Of the Legislature basing his action on mere
runor and bar room conversation, though l.be
lieve perfectly honest in his convictions, intro
duced this resolution of inquiry. TO contne
myself strictly to the terms of the resolution
after the wide range the investigation has taken,
would be impossible. =.
Mr. Ould:-That is the resolution of the
committee.
Mr. Smith-No, sir. 1t was suggested by
your side: but not adopted 1t appears that at
the commencement no one could be found to
father this inquiry, but We had not proceeded
far before the President of the Richmond, Fred
ericksburg and Potomac railroad came forward
and declared himself the instigator OF the IN
vestigation and admitted that he had prepared
and furnished the resolution The object of
this resolution is first to prevent the passage OF
this BILL and. second. to lay the foundation tor
proceedings in court to repeal the charter OF the
company In both the charters of this COM
pany it is prescribed that under the general
railroad law the Legislature reserves to Itself
the right to change. modify. or repeal it. |
would state that this power is limited where
vested rights have been exercised undera char
ter. and no act of the Legislature can disturb
these vested rights. Thus much for the right
of the Legislature to change this charter.
Again contend that a charter is in the nj;
ture of a contract and no Legislature can declare
any contract null. especially one where rights
have accrued under it. In the case of Fletcher
VS. Peck. in Georgia. where the Legislature
had actually been bribed to give land and 4
subsequent Legislature had repealed the act,
the United States Supreme Court decided that
it could not be done. even though fraud had
been practccd, and that the persons who had
purchased the land were entitled to it. These
are the general princi Piles of this matter.
In 1864 the Alexandria and Fredericksburg
Company was chartered, books were opened:
1000 shares subscribed, and 81 per share paid
on these shares 1t is immaterial who paid tor
into bank in October '65 by Mr.. Johnston. on
account of the commissioners LISA point made
by the other side that $40 instead of 81 per
share should have been paid. Now, so far as
this payment of 81 share is concerned, that Is
clearly established but still there is proof =
perhaps not conclusive-that $4,000 was de-
posted in Huyck' bank to the credit of this
company Mr.. Johnston testifes that he saw
on Huyck's books large sums credited to the
Alexandria and Fredericksburg railroad 1t may
be that this was not paid on the shares, but it
is by no means proved that it did not include
the 10 per cent. These stockholders went on
to act in good faith under this organization
They paid out $50, 600 for land damages, en-
gineering. and to contractors. This looks like
serious work. doesn it? This does not look like
bogus company. does it? They went on to
put their road under contract The work was
continued until Bodfsh, Mills j. Co. broke, and
then it was discontinued until February. 1870,
when the contract was made between Roberts
and Lincoln.
This was Mr. Roberts first connection with
the company-the first he knew Of it. Lincoln
appeared in Philadelphia and offered to sell the
franchise. &C., of the road Roberts agreed that
if Lincoln would obtain all the stock and bonds;
secure the franchise, and secure the passage OF
from the forfeiture of its charter, he would pay
him $4,000 Lincoln did all this No one
claims that there was any fraud in the passage
of that law on june 18th. 1870. Tit is claimed
against any member of that Legislature We
would like to know it. As far us Roberts and
those he represents are concerned there can
be no fraud. for it was five years after the COM
pany WIS organized that they became connected
with it. The contract made by Lincoln Was
complied with.
This matter has already been ventilated in
the Corporation Court of Alexandra in suit
of J. B. Stewart VS.. Roberts ct al. He had
failed to get IN injunction from the United
States Court. and in the Corporation Court
Judge Lowe had decided against him on All APP
plication for writ Of quo warranto against
Roberts ct al The Judge decided that Stewart
had no interest in the road. and that Roberts
was the owner. The opinion sets forth that
there was nothing in the sale to be inquired
into until the contract was to be concluded, and
when that time came Lincoln showed the bonds
and stocks of the road properly signed and
transferred, and Roberts was justifable in re,
garding him as the owner Now, we have
gotten rid of the technical objection OF the 50
intcad Of $40 per share, aud We have shown
that Roberts could not have been connected with
the fraudulent organization of the company.
and that since his purchase of the road he has
gone on spending money for rights OF way and
putting hands to work on the road And yet
under the circumstances they are called up be-
fore a committee of the Legislature on the
charge of being bogus corporation. My
friends will still contend that there was 81 in
stead of $40 paid Who loses by that? Not
the State No stock holder has complained. =
The amount is merely put in to give security
that the company was organizing means to build
the work.
But apart from all this, I contend that the
act of June 4th. 1870. entitled IAN act to- amend
the charter Of the Alexandria and Fredercks-
burg Railroad Company heals and cures all
that. How could the charter of a company be
amended unless the company was already Or
ganized? The act further says the work on the
road shall be resumed Doesn't that concede
and assume that the work had already been
My position, which maintain
is law, is that wherever a Legislature recognizes
by law the existence of a company, itisa waiver
of any objection to formalities that existed in
the original organization, and dispenses with
and cures them This principle is set forth in
New York, People VS., Manhattan Company
"a case precisely similar to this), and many other
cases Il list of which we are ready to furnish
the cnmmittne IL the act of $50 cures