The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-01-18
line, but, for steamboat company, not ex

cessively SO. -I'TS.'' 80
Judge Crump, of counsel for Mfr. Robin.
sen. here interpoaed m objection to the line
OF inquiry followed by Mr. Lyon, and
Thought this was no occasion for stump
speeches
| Mr. Lyon: / suppose you refer to Mr.
Robinson, MS he made the first speech. h
Judge Crump: No, sir; to you. What
does the president of your road get?
Mr.. Lyon: Twelve thousand dollars.
| Judse Crnmp then proceeded to argue
that If Mr.. Raglnd received $4,000 for
hcinS president of G2 miles of rliroad MIR.
Robinson ought to get three times as much
for 100 miles. But he thought the question
OF salary and the earnings Of the Steamboat
Company had nothing to do with this matter.
The inquiry ought to be confined to the
simple complaint Of the Petersburg Railroad
Company that they cannot get throushlines
Of communication.
Mr. Daniel (of counsel for Mr.. Rohinson)
took the same view Of the case. Mr.. Robin
son wished to conceal nothing that he had
right to reveal. But if the committee re-
quired an expose Of the affairs of the Balti-
more Steamboat Company they required
more than the State Of Maryland, by whose
laws thateompauy was chartered.
Mr. Lyon: Our purpose in coming here is
simple, single, and certain, aud we do not
mean to be dccoyed or provoked away from
the issue that this committee sits to learn
about. The first official communication OF
Mr.. RaSland to the General Assembly alleged
that the obstructiyeness of the Richmond,
Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Com
pany rendered it impossible for his company
to obtain through mites which are not prac
4 III nI1 In.
ties, and as if to avoid all suspicious of per-
sonalties, lie alleged that this obstructive
ness grew out of and was prolonged by the
| influence of the Scaboard and Roanoke rail-
road and the Old Bay Line Of boats under the
control oGone will. propoSeto prove hat Mr.
Robinson in his reply TO Mr.. Raghnd's COM
nunication alleged that it was not true that
men Of the SAME will controlled the three
companies, and that his interest in the Fred
ericksburg road was greater than his interest
in the Seaboard road and the Bay Line His
| words are, "The truth us to these assertions
is that the interest of these stockholders in the
route ria Washington is nearly twice rs
great as their interest in the railroad and
steamboat route ria Portsmouth," Here we
Joint issue in fact, and if our questions are
answered we are prepared to prove that the
interest ofthese stockholders in the steamboat
company since they run off Leary's oppoSi-
ton by aid of an act of Assembly passed in
1866 has in some cases amounted to twenty
five per cent. per annum, whereas we can
also prove that this poor Fredericksburg road
has never declared dividend. however small,
except when the Scaboard and Roanoke rail
road was down. When there was a fair
competition the Fredericksburg road paid
per cent, but since the Seaboard and Roa-
noke road went to work under its unatera-
bic charter it has not paid one cent. When
in 1862 the Portsmouth line stopped, the
Fredericksburg road commenced paving
elegantly, and was profitable, but when it
was set free again the Fredericksburg road
dried up. There is necessary and irrccon-
cilahle commercial antagonism between the
route flom Weldon to Baltimore ria Ports
mouth and the route from Weldon to Ealti-
more rid Richmond. The two lines. re-
peat, are necessarily competitors. IL is Just
us reasonable that Won Noltkc should baye
commanded both the PruSsian and the
French armies in the late war rs that
the same person should manage these two
rival roads. No man can ride two horses
and strive to beat the race. The act CT
March, 1866, cited by Mr. Robinson in his
reply to Mr.. Ragland, although ncmaally
bill "to protect The interests Of the Com
monwealth and other stockholders in the
railroads between Weldon and Baltimore
from reckless and injurious competitions"
WAS in fact bill to authorize the Seaboard
and Roanoke railroad TO double its charge,
Oil passengers. claim that it is the right
and duty of this committee to ascertain
whether, a. alleged, the controlling power in
these companies ha!, as alleged, a superior
interest there than here. The salary is
ore Of the facts tending to show
where lies the interest CT greater
magnitude. 1t is true the laborer is worthy
of his hire. but it is also true that
higher wages bring better labor. As to the
Stcam.Packet Company. it is true that it is 4
Maryland. corporation, but a Virginia rail-
road, by virtue of all act Of Assembly passed
1868, owns one-third OF its stock, worth
1888, 300, and in the face of the limitation OF
its dividends the Scaboard and Roanoke
Company has invested LARGELY OF its profits
above fifteen per cent. in two foreign corpo-
ratiOns-tbc one on the sea, and the other i'll
North Carolina. Ono or these investments
amounts to Sl33,3O0, and the other probably
| to great deal more tIun so. 1000. This conf
pany, repeat, in natural ;nagonism TO the
Fredericksburg road, has within the last few
years taken the profits that ought to have
gone TO tie stockholders, and above
| iftcen per cent, to the reduction Of
tolls and fares, and invested in foreign en-.
| tcrpriscs. These are the facts which we wish
to appear, and which will starte the people
Of Virginia and their representatives i'll the
| Legislature. This committee cuunct. with
out criminal dcrclction, fail to inquire why
the Fredericksburg road paid seven per cent.
to the State until jts natural adversary, the
Seaboard and Roanoke railroad, said, stop,
and let 1t come 10 us, and we will hide it in
the bosom of the Chesapeake hay. or in the
pockets of foreign stockholders, who will
lock it up. is it not the duty Of the COM
mittee to inquire how it is that the money
which the State ought to have received and
being now received from her investment of
S275,2 in the Fredericksburg road is flow
ing into Baltimore and Philadelphia:
MIR. Lyon then read again Mr.. Robinscn's
statement that his interest in the Richmond,
Fredericksburg and Potomac railroad was
twice a. great as his interest in the Scaboard
and Roanoke railroad and Bay Line. He
denied this, and he had called upon Mr.. Ro-
binson rs witness to prove it.
Judge Ould was here understood to cX-
press his clients willingness TO answer the
question to which objection had been at tirst
raised.
Mr.. Lyon then repeated it. What divi-
dends and profits have been received by the
stockholders Of the Baltimore Steam Packet
Company since you run Leary's opposition
of in the year 1865!
Mr.. Daniel: must again protest against
the proprieiy of this inquiry.
Mr.. Lyon: Well, sir, he cain answer ii or
not, as he plcases.
MIR. Daniel said the measure Of interest
was not the dividends of few years, but the
number of shares held In each line. lie was