New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-07-06

Vicksburg, shreveport and Texas De
| bris-OpfniOns of John McEnery, ID. +
Head and Others-The Bonds to thu
North Louisiasa and Texas Railroad
etc.
In order to clear up as far as possible tht
| misapprehensions, misstatements, scanda
| and perversion of facts surrounding tht
various transactions connected with the
old Vicksburg, Shreveport and Texas rail
road and the North Louisiana and Texas rail
road, the following resume Of facts has been
prepared from the most authentic sources
! and is now published by the REPUBLICAN
to deprive some of its contemporaries OF
any reasonable excuse for continuing to
| misrepresent the issues involved:
OS the sixth day of February, 1866, the
| debris of the Vicksburg, Shreveport and
Texas railroad was sold at public auction,
| under an order Of seizure and Gale, and pur-
| chased by William r. Gordon, John T.
Ludeling, Francis P. Stubbs, John Ray,
| George c. Waddill, William NJ. Pinckard
| and w. j. G. Baker The road was then a
complete wreck. At the first offering
Branner & Co. were the highest and last
| bidders, and the property was knocked OFT
to them. They failed and refused to COM
ply with their bid, and the sheriff, in ac-
cordance with law, offered the property
anew for sale, when John T. Ludeling be-
came the purchaser for himself and asso-
cates as the last and highest bidder, and
on payment of the price bid. title was
made to them.
Shortly after this, suit was insti-
tuted by Charles N. Conrad g. Sons
and Judge X. w. Richardson, expe-
rienced aud distinguished counsel, in the
name of G. NJ. Branner & Co.. against the
sheriff and John T. Ludeling and his asso-
cIates, to set aside the sale and to compel
the sheriff to make q title to Branner u
Co. The district court decided that the
sheriff acted correctly in making the sale
de noro, and rendered judgment in favor Of
the defendants. On appeal, the Supreme
Court affirmed tbs Judgment. This was
long before Chief Justice Ludeling became
a em5er Of the court.
In the spring of 1866 H. r. jackson pub.
lished, in Monroe, q manifesto declaring
his intention to attack the salo to Lude-
ling and bis associates at some flu.
at the sheriff's sale sued out a
m0nition, in accordance with the laws of
Louisiana, in order to confirm their title.
Oppostions to the mOnitiOn we're made by
a bOndholder, and also by stockholders.
The district court decided that the sale was
regular aud valid. and confirmed and hOmO-
LOCATED the sale. An appeal was taken by
the opponents, and the Supreme Court
affirmed the Judgment Of the district court.
On the eighth Of December, 1866, H. Il.
jackson and others, holders Of part of the
bonds, secured by the mortgage under which
the sale to Ludeling and associates was
made, instituted the suit of jackson ct al
VS.. the Vicksburg, Shreveport and Texas
Railroad Company ct AL" in the Circuit
Court of the Cnited States, fifth circuit, dis
trict Of Louisiana, to annul the sheritf's sale
to Ludeling and his associates. The case
was fully argued, both orally and by
briefs, and was taken under advise
ment by Judge Woods, magistrate
where admitted. He rendered an elaborate
opinion, in which he sustained the defend.
ants on every pOint in the case. The com.
plainant appealed.
1t would seem that common deeency and
fairness would exact silence from the ad.
vocates of those who had thus far SO sig
nally failed to obtain any recognition OF
their pretensions by any tribunal to which
they had appealed. Five judgments in
create in any candid mind a presumption IN
their favor. Not SO, however. That sale
has furnished p1etext for the unmeasured
abuse and calumny Of John L. Ludeling and
John Ray for several years past IN the teeth
OF their vindication by the judicial tribu-
nails of the country. 1t might be pertinently
asked why they alone, Of all the purchas-
ers, have been singled out for calumy and
abuse in certain newspapers! William NJ.
Pinckard, George c. Waddill, Francis p.
Stubbs and others were cO-purchasers with
Ray and Ludeling and united with them in
every measure complained of. Can the
political opinions of these gentlemen have
been the only cause of the detractiOn to
which they have been exposed in :his
matter!
The gravamen of the complaint against
the purchasers of the railroad is that the
price & iven for it was too low. The price
paid was two-thirds Of the appraised value.
and vas the highest bid, at a public auc-
ton, repeatedly held to have been fair.
But it is alleged the appraisement Of the
property sold was not fair, and was too
low. The testimony Of forty-fve witnesses,
among the most respectable and intelligent
citizens in the country along the line OF the
road, who We're well acquainted with its
condition and its value at the period of the
sale, was taken in the suit Of jackson.
They variously estimated the value at from
ten to severty-five thousand dollars. The
appraisers had estimated the value of the
property at $4,000. Among the witnesses
who testified to the value Of this property
are John McEnery, Rev. DIR. T. b. Lawson
and Colonel James Hart, and others Of
equal responsibility. Colonel John Nc Emery
said in his evidence: "In my opinion, an
estimate ranging from fifty thousand to
seventy five thousand dollars is fair and
proper one. place this estimate, because
its value at the time specified was involved
in uncertainty and doubts, and it was con-
sidered questionable whether it had any
intrinsic value at ALL" Colonel Hart said:
81 consider that $780, 900 was full and fair
value of the property. AS further
evidence of what l thought Of the value of
the property, was offered an interest in
the purchase shortly after the sale on equal
terms with the original purchasers, and
refused to take the interest (although had
the money necessary and wanted to invest
it), because did not think there was any
money in the bargain" D. F. Head, pro-
in the said road at the time of sale, when it
was bid Of at 5000, and declined taking
it, for the reason that l did not believe it
worth that amount in the condition at the
tisre Of SALE"
Every material allegation of the COM
piainants' bill has been triumphantly dis
proved by the evidence in the record. and
the Lnsworn allegations of the complain
ants bill and of their attorneys briefs, after
their falsehp hpod has been thus exposed and
repl obated by every court that has pro-
nounced upon them, are reiterated day
after day by partisan press. Is this fair
play. Either they willfully suppress the
truth, or they are culpably ignorant IN re-
gard to matters upon which they have vol
unfairly and persistently undertaken TO in,
strict the public.
The same may be said of the tippan. and
unmerited attack upon Governor Kellogg
for issuing the bonds Of the State in favor
of the North Louisiana and Texas Railroad
Company, as will appear from brief state,
ment in regard to the legislation in favor OF