The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-08-28

Had the Springfield Republican or the
Boston TroDelier originated the scandal
upon our courts, we should have been un-
willing to have said even as much as we
have In extenuation of their conduct, but
let US listen to the Burlington Free Press in
q leading editorial published October LIST,
1879, and before any Massachusetts or
other paper had attacked our courts.
The following remarkable sentence oc-
ours ''lf the court does mol actually as
well as nominally run the roads, it Is be-
cause to the extent Of lis connection with
the roads the TRUSTEES run rnE CorRr.'
The last words are capitalized to call at
tention to the remarkable assertion
Does Mr. Sanborn, in August 1873, say
that the Smiths had captured a single
Judge: Then Mr. Benedict said in Octo-
Der, 1872, that the trustees had captured
the entire bench. Did the Springfield Re
publican, speaking to an audience that had
but single interest before our courts, say
in accordance with the public opinion with
which it was surrounded, that Governor
Smith had captured Judge Royce ?" Then
the Burlington Free Press addressing an
audience whose lives, liberties, personal
-security and entire property were subject
to the jurisdiction of the courts, say that
the railway kings had not only gained a
supremacy over the courts but also had
used that supremacy, not in attempting 10
run, but actually running the court. How
carefully insulting was that word running
in that connection Yet none of the
editors who have licked the hands that
doled out the free passes, and whose pens
are Just now elevated in pious horror at
this foreign ''nobody" said word against
the modest insinuation of one of the most
prominent journals of the State.
1t is of no consequence, however, to us
who have confidence in the judiciary of the
state, who attack them, If so be that the
charges are untrue The history Of the
case given by your correspondent is per-
haps as technically correct as he wished to
make it ; certainly none of the legal points
have been omitted which are supposed "to
make" in favor of the present receivers.
One quite important point in the history is
omitted and that is that, while when the
suit was started in 1855, the Vermont and
Canada Railroad Company were both nom
inal and actual plaintiffs, the Vermont
Central company and the trustees of the
first mortgage bonds actual and adverse
, defendants. In 1861 when the cause was
determined. Coy. Smith and his friends
owned both sides of the lawsuit, control
T ing a majority of Vermont and Canada
stock, some if not all of them represented
8 in its direction. The Governor claiming to
g own all the stock of the Central while he
I and the other trustees of the first mortgage
were practically all there was of the de-
r fence and in addition to that were in pos
session of the profits of both roads as re-
anomalous case, for the variety of loans
and for its continuance in its present form
by our Court of Chanccry.
While we not only concede but insist
upon the doctrine of the present ability and
|. integrity of the courts, we claim the right
both publicly and privately to discuss the
+ propriety of any decision of any court
We should not be disposed to express our
: opinion had not Vermont defended the
: propricty of some of the rulings. We pass
t over the rulings made last March, which
t we think may be fairly stated, that upon q
f petition for the removal of Receiver be.
,. fore the Chancellor, matters which arc
QUESTIONS OF ACCOUNTING will not be heard
: although they may involve .frdud on the
n part of the Receivers, and that when
o former DEGREES designate the manner in
which Receivers are to file and pass hei,
h accounts, that special master will not be
= appointed upon petition for removal to
h ascertain whether the Receiver has unwar
e rantably made pro 1t to himself. Leaving
this subject with the remark that at the
time of the hearing the Receivers had
r neglected for seven years, covering the
r whole period of operations disastrous to
the trust, to fulfil the duty devolving upor
: them, and that upon the non-fulfillment
of this duty the Receivers enjoyed an adj
vantage from their own neglect-'a re-
suit which the law declares intolerable tC
us pass to the consideration of the pro
pricty of the order making the Central Yer
mont Receiver in relation to which the
II article by Vermont is the only defence W,
u have seen.
He says, "The Legislature nominated
| -. I
= ing in mind that the first mortgage bondl
20 amount to So, 900, 900, and that the capita
: stock subscribed to the Central Vermont
was S2,000,000 The only nomination OF
) the legislature is in the following words
and this is the only clause which ever
hints at reccivership by that corpora
. ton:
q "And provided further that until stock
= shall have been subscribed sufficient to re-
tire majority of the said first mOrtgag,
, bonds, as aforesaid, the company shal
e have power temporarily, to operate sale
- roads, subject to the order of the court il
the case Vermont and Canada Railroad
y Company, ct ais. VS.. Vermont Central Rail
is road Company, ct ais, pending in Frank
Il lin county, in chanccry."
; What was the object of passing this re
l. markable bill 1t was said by Governor
IS Smith, at Horticultural Hall, to be for thu
g purpose of taking the case out of court, ant
II that was the reason urged upon the legisla
d ture, and it is one of the reasons limited a
=, by Vermont
+ The Legislature foreseeing that in its in
s cipiency, after 800, 900, and until 81 800
20 900 capital stock had been subscribed, Il
/ might be well for the new corporation t.
Nc run the road temporarily, gave it that ca
pacity under that limitation, but foreseeinl