The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1872-05-27
Posting the Railroad Books.

from an cultOTII uldSlS "a AAuAS1NJ .
Register we take the following statement
referring to the editor Of the INTELII'
GRNcEH:
The construction contract has been shown 70
him on two several occasions, b9t no rgss Ii,, %
Rad u, Andnow pfetends 10 ind fault w! some.
body and asks the people TO vote agalnst me
subscription, because hO don't know WHAT me
contract contIlns. Correspondents 81 tne IN.
TBLLIGBNCER, as well 90 Of tho RSgtS'sri nave
explained the provisions Of tho document, but
no still finds It cOnvCnient 10 pretend ignorance
OF tho terms Of the agreement.
Some two or three, months ago, Mr..
RoBERT II. Cochran, the attorney of the
Wheeling 6 Lake Erie Railway Company
(who is doing his employers double ser.
vice by edlting-Snd controlling the col.
umns Of the Register u their intcrest),
came to our Office at late hour at night,
when we were very busy. He said he
had just received a copy Of contract re-
Gently entered into between his company
and parties in New York for the con.
struction of the W. & L. E, Railroad. He
produced lengthy printed document and
asked II we would like to examine 1t.
We asked II he wished 1t published. He
replied that he had not yet shown 1t TO
President WooDs, but expected when he
had done so to furnish copy for publlca.
ton. We invited him 10 do so, merely
taking the document in our hands and
glancing at it, declining to examine it
then from lack of time. We have no dis
tinct remembrance that Mr.. COCHRAN
offered us the paper asecond time, but 1t is
very likely he did, as he was in Our
office very frequently and always talking
aboutthe railroad and contract. Whether
he did or not is Of no consequence, as he
was always willing for us to see the con.
tract privately, md once or twice invited
US to come to his office and examine it.
We as often invited him to give US q copy
for publication. Mr.. CoCHRAN's first
proffer to see the contract was declined
simply for want Of time, with an expecta.
ton of soon having it for publication.
Upon reflection, 1t was declined after
wards for other reasons. We presumed
his anxiety to have US make private
examination OF the document was with q
view Of having US to say to the public
that we hal seen it and there was nothing
Objectionable in it. We knew that only
an acute lawyer would be capable OIL
judging the provisions Of such doCu'
ment, and that it would be improper fol
US to undertake to'advise the public about
1t, if willing to do so. Bat we were moi
willing to be put into the position of IN
interpreter Of the contract for other
reasons. We did not choose to be made
the repository Of the company's secrets or
occupy towards II u confidential relation,
or relation in any wise different from
what we held towards the public. We
felt no curiosity for private information
about this contract. Wewcrc not willing
to obtain information that was withheld
from the public in way that was dc.
signed to compromise us; but We sought
on every occasion to get the paper Tor
publication and give it to our readers.
Now in relation to the other point Of the
extract: Some of the provisions Of this
contract have been stated by the parties
toit The presumption is they have been
stated fairly. But it is quite an elaborate
document. May there not be other pro-
visions worth knowing about? The rea.
son assigned by MIR, II. B. WILSON, the
contractor, in our office few days ago,
why it would not be proper to publish the
contract, was that might expose them to
injunctions and. other troubles. Now, it
occurs to US that if there is anything be-
hind the scenes likely 10 make it neccs
sary for our citizens to protect them.
selves by injunctions it disclosed, they
ought to know what it is before putting
themselves into the position of needing in.
functions for their protection.