The Rutland weekly globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-08-15


and most ignorant blow, which was FOL
lowed up by three column editorial four
days later and since then has been heard
the rafting of such small hammers as the
st. Adams Messenger, Woodstock Standard
and other papers which We should suppose
would be unwilling, hastily and ignorantly
to condemn the Judiciary of their own
state, on which, so far as the writer Is in
formed, no shadow of blame or doubt has
ever rested since the organization of our
government.
II is not my purpose, however, to refer
to these articles in detail, that being more
properly within your editorial sphere, and
l shall confine myself, as closely as pos
sible, to my specific purpose which ! will
define as follows: The articles and com
ments which have appeared in the public
prints in relation to the various phases of
this controversy have been for the most
part in journals of good standing and many
nay most of them-have manifested
ability and learning. Some Of these to the
writer's certain knowledge have been the
work of men of good, and even of high
standing in the legal profession and ac-
quainted with the forms and practices of
the Vermont courts. The writer trusts
and believes they have generally been
honest, and yet 50 far as his observation
has gone. they have without exception
contained more or less false or mistaken
assertions or assumptions, and have uni
versally shown the ignorance of
their writers regarding the true
status of the great suit in Chancery
which is the center, and nucleus of all
the Higation connected with this railroad
war. Nor is this to he wondered at. for
the case has no familiar precedent, if in
deed any precedent case he found, and so
different has been its course from the
course of ordinary chancery practice in
this country that it may almost I've said to
he "a law unto itself, and only study of the
case nitself qualify man, be he never so
familiar with the paths that in his opinion
it ought to have followed, to judge of its
merits. From a careful examination, with
such aids as are accessible, it is my purpose
to give condensed history of the case
with particular reference to its recent fea-
lures and the action of the judiciary. 1t is
not my purpose to follow the gencalogy of
the Smith family or of any members of the
Ring back into the third or fourth gcner-
alton, to prove by moral induction the pro-
prieiy or improperly Of their wealth, but
merely to define from disintcrested stand
point the status of the said "Nermont and
Canada Railroad Company Va Vermont
Central Railroad Company and Others, in
Chanccry.
For my purpose it will not he necessary
to 20 back of the final decree which at the
same time ended and begun this cause, ex-
ccpt for II brief explanation. The suit was
commenced in 1855 ostensibly upon the
same ground of complaint as that of the
proceedings instituted last December,
namely, the nonpayment of rent to the
Vermont and Canada road, which road was
held as leasehold estate by the Vermont
Central, and by the terms of their con
tract, in case of failure to pay rent by the
Central, the Canada was to have the right
to enter upon and run both roads until its
claim should be satisfied. This contract
was held to be valid and binding by the
court, and accordingly on the nth Of May
1865, an order was made putting the Cana
da Company in possession, and il continued
to run and operate the roads for about the
space of one year, when an agreement was
made by the parties in interest, and on the 9th
of May, 1856, all parties in interest appear
ing and assenting,an order was made by the
Chancellor that possession of the property
be restored to the trustees of the first mort
cages to be managed by them as receivers
of the Court of Chancery in the interest of
the security holders. The measures it
would appear, were intended as a tempo
rary provision for the care and manage
ment of this vast estate pending the final
decree of the Court on the Orators petit
ton. In April, 1860, this decree came,
granting the prayer of the petition. A
prompt appeal from this decision to the
Supreme Court was taken by both parties
and the case was heard by the Supreme
Court at its January term, 1861, and is re-
ported at length in the 34th Vermont. In
the opinion of the Court, delivered by
Judge Barrett, the rights of the Canada
company under their contract with the
Central are recognized and established 50
far as to entitle them to their rent, which
is fixed at the sum of eight per cent. per
annum upon 81 ,348 800, the cost of con-
struction of their road, but, says Judge
Barrett, 'ln the present position of the
case, the Court being unable to decide that
that the Orators are entitled to the pos
session of the roads, property, etc, itseems
obvious in view of the character Of the
property and of the various interests in.
yolved that the only proper or practicable
course is to have the roads and property
remain in the hands of receivers under the
control of the Court of Chancery. A
mandate will be drawn in detail according
to these views and points of decision and
sent to that Court"
1t should be remembered that the orator
had prayed either for the possession of the
roads or the appointment of receivers
Thus the matter was settled and in obedi
ence to the mandate referred to we have
the decree of 1861" continuing the pos
session and control of the roads and pro
perty sin the present receivers, Lawrence
Brainard, Joseph Clark and John Gregory
Smith subject to the orders and directions
of this Court with power of removal at al
times" Considerable stress has been laiC
upon the fact that this decree was not re
corded in the Clerks Office until afterthe en-