Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1873-12-26
Xermouf Valley Road,

tons involved. Within such bounds OF
duty we have intended to keep these briei
comments on some melancholy facts.
Vermont Valley Road.
The effort before Judge Barrett to put
the new and real directors Of the Vermont
Valley Railroad, from Brattleboro to bel
lows Falls, into possession, has ialled- nc
Judge sustains the present lease to the En-
mont Central, and it seems now ellGent
that the road cannot be gotten out oil their
hands till this lease expires. year from
next June. Then it must certainly De given
up % the stockholders, who are IN the IN
tere-t of tho Connecticut River Raliroad.-
NpriHQfed Republican.
year ago or more, the Connecticut
l..,er Railroad party, above referred to.un-
dcrtook. by buying majority of the stock
ofthe Vermont Valley Railroad and repu-
dating it, contracts, to take immediate
ro,se>~ion Of that road, in order to wrest 1t
from its position in the Vermont Central line
and monopolize ali business below Bellows
Falls. To cover up the odiousness of this
procedure they talked freely ofthe bankrupt
Vermont Railroads, as though they had no
rights which rich foreign corporation was
bound to respect, and even charged them
with d" stealing " the Valley Road. 1t was
the Springfield Republican that said - The
bones Of Ethan Allen were, no doubt, stolen
from his grave and the thieves were the an
ce,tors Of the men in Vermont now engaged
in stealing railroads.
How far this conspiracy has succeeded, the
Republican, states above. But it condoles
the defeated party with the assurance that
a year from next jane, the road nusi GER
iqaly be delivered up to them.
THIS assurance is no doubt comforting to
them, bat there is passage in the opinion
Of Chancellor Barrett, which has an awk
ward Sluint the other way. lie said
In April, ISL petition preferred by the
then Valley Railroad Company. defendants IN SAID
decree OF l5Gi against the orators in that decree,
asking an enlargement Of the time Of payment IN
which petition il j. set forth that lease Of the com
Vanys railroad had been negotiated for % years, at
i yearly rent of sGD,9O for the first four years, and
5000 for the res due OF the term; and il therein
shown that the interests of all parties interested
would be promoted by the opening Of said decree,
and extending the time 81 payment not exceeding
ten wears so As 10 apply the net income Of said
road under said lease in eXtingu shment OF slld
debt" sc. In the petition now in hand, the fact OF
the lease Of the l3th Of May, is, for ten years IS
set forth, and the ass snment oi u 10 the rutland
Railroad Company and to the Vermont Central and
the Central Vermont Railroad Company, and tina
the lessons have received the rents under - q lease
sufficient, with the other money paid TO them 10y
the petitioner company, 10 pay OF ne aiorfyays
and il vouches said enlarged decree as giving tho
petitioner company the right TO the possession OF
the road, which possession has been demanded and
refused.
A. This petition makes the decree % 1861, As On
larged in 1871 the ground Of the relief asked, Of
course the petitioners must he regarded as adopt
lns the proceedings by which such revision and en-
largement were procured This would at any rate
embrace the lease Of So for ten years under which
the right Of possession that period is vested IN
the present occupants, and mould fairly present the
QUESTION irh,ther The present. PefienfrS, under aud
tor the purposes Of fhsir Petiiion, wo"A not o.
bound By fhs freHfg feass ichIrh IS ser form
the petition for enlargement Of me ttHe Of pay
rteHf "a the said decree Of l7oi.
This question. - which the learned judge
raises. he was not called on then to decide;
but if ever it becomes his duty to decide it,
it is hardly doubtlul what his decision will
be. The question in another form is simply
this Whether party shall be permitted to
deny allegations made and sworn to by him
self, and by virtue Of which he has obtained
the very ground on which he stands in
court to ask relief. Is he not. in legal
phrase, estopped from 50 doing?
Now, if, on the final trial, it should APP
pear that the officers and agents of this cor
poration did not in 1871, in court, perjure
themselves a. to the fact of the negotiation
of the 20 years lease; that the negotiation
was made, and that the Rutland road re-
lying thereon made its lease for 20 years to
the Vermont Central trustees, that these
facts were well known to the Connecticut
River party before they bought their stock;
and that lease in pursuance Of that nego-
tiation was actually Though defectively)
executed and delivered to the Rutland road
who shall say that court Of equity ought
nat to compel the Valley road to confirm
this lease by remedying any defect in the
execution thereof? Is it not case of de-
ieetiye execution Of a contract, when the
parties and subject-matter are fully within
the control of the courts?
Ii is true that the Connecticut River
Railroad Is a rich corporation, and that the
Vermont Valley road is out of debt .substan
tially7a distinction which no other road in
Vermont can claim; bat this furnishes no
reason why they should be permitted to re-
pudiate 4 contract with a poorer corpora
ton, to its great damage 1t is matter for
congratulation that We have judges in Yer
mont who can neither be bought nor bullied
10 lend their aid to the success of any
such unrighteous conspiracy.
When the controversy Is ended, doubtless,
the Republican will be able TO find comfort
in the assurance that the Valley road must
certainly IN 1891 be given up to those 'rto
are "m the interest ef hc Connecticut Rirer
Rallr0adr'