The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-11-24
THE @. & o. ROAD
IT'S COST AND CONDITIONS.
IT'S LIABILITIES AND ASSETS.
PROSPECT OF cREsIToRs.

PROSPECT OF CREsITORs. 81
Statement of Mr. ]. O. Steger to
Receiver Tyson.
Mr. Henry Tyson, receiver of the Chess
peake and Ohio Railroad Company, some
time ago requested Mr.. john o. Steger, bis
counsel, to furnish hjM sa condensed state
ment of the cost OF the road, As present
liabilities, and IFS assets and also q state.
ment of the character of the proceedings and
present condition of the suit now pending
in the Circuit Courts of the United States
for the Eastern District Of Virginia and OF
the District of West Virginia. Mr. Steger
has completed his labors and furnished MIR.
Tyson with the following paper:
MIR. stcger's statement.
-,-- RICHMoED, November, 1875.
Henry Tyson, Esq, Receiuer Of the Chesa.
/ peake and Ohio Railroad Company:
Dear Sir,-I find it impracticabis to com.
ply with your request "to furnish you with
a condensed statement Of pibe cost Of the
Chesapeake and Ohio railroad, its present
liabilities, and its assets.o The accounts fur.
nisbed you by the Richmond and New York
|iofiees Of the company are so variant that
cannot reconcile them. l con, therefore, at
this time, do no more than give you here
with the accounts themselves. with such
comment as may occur to me to be proper.
THE COST OF TIE ROAD.
According to the account furnished you
by the Richmond Office, marked No. Z, and
filed with your report of October %, 1875,
the total cost of the road asd Of equipment
up to August 81, 1875, is stated to be $25,.
735, ,43404, while the account furnished you
by the New York office, marked A, up to
precisely the same period, makes the total
cost of the road and equipment $45, $685..
6S006. This last account, however, includes
in expenses SIC, ,498, 800 of common stock oil
the company given away by the stockhold-
ers at their annual meetings Of November
1869, and December, 1872, (see proposition
of G. p. Huntington and agreement Of G. P.
Huntington and others with the company,
dated November 16, 1860, a1d the action of
the stockholders at their annual meetings Of
November, 1869, and December, 1872, here.
with presenied,) $4.S60,64S.53 Of interest
paid on bonded debt and loans during cou-
struction, and sundry other items omitted
in the Richmond account.
LIABILITIES OF THE COMPANY.
The account furnished you by the Rich.
mond Office. marked No. 4. and filed with
your report, makes the liabilities Of the
company up to August 81, 1875, S28,7S9,-
240G7. This result Is obtained by deducting
from the gross amosnt of the liabilities
S36, ,016, 6,340.67 first; g 36l, 100 Of s per cent.
mortgage bonds purchased by the company;
and secondly, S4,S66, 900 of debenture bonds
AZ doh H.,
could only be exchanged for per cent. Sc.
cond mortgage bonds. By this account
it would seem that the debeature bonds
then outstanding, August 81, 1876, amounted
| to 1885,, 900, aud the second mortgage per
cent. bonds to So, ,426, 900. BY the same ac'
count 1t appears that prior 10 November,
1873, S4,997,000 of debenture bonds had
been issued by the company, and S65,OOO
had heeH purchased by the company, leaving
| s., ,932 900 then outstanding. From this 1t
| would be fair to conclude that none of the
| debenture bonds had then been exchanged
for per cent. mortgage bonds. 1t also ap'
pears from that account that up to NoYem
ber, 1873, S2,662,00 of 7 per cent. second
mortgage bonds had been issued by the COM
pany. There is no pretence that any Of these
second mortgage bonds had been repur
chased by the company. Now, in addition
to the fact that the 81 ,932, 900 or debenture
| bonds are put down in this account as ther
outstanding, and the further fact that the
account states that the 81, ,S86 600 OF deben
ture bonds are to be exchanged" it is OBJ
rious that if the S4.S6G,000 OF debenturt
| bonds had then been exchanged into secont
mortgage per cent. bonds there Woult
then have been outstanding 1862, 900 plu:
81, ,SG6 ,000=S7, ,52S,00O OF second mortgage
bonds instead of S5,42 6,000--a difference o
g, 1902 600. Taking this account alone II
would seem to be perfectly clear that the
S4.S66 900 of detenture bonds had not, up tt
August 81, 1875, been exchanged for second
mortgage per cent. bonds. But supposins
that these 81, $780, 900 Of debenture bonds
were part OF the 81, ,932, ,0G0 represented BY
this account as then outstanding, 1t Wonld
seem too clear for question If they were tc
be exchanged for other bonds OF the com
pany the amount Of indebtedness OF the com
pluy would remain the same, the amount ol
the debenture bonds would be diminished
and the amount of the bonds which were
exchanged for them would be increased
But have shown that the IS, ,426,O00 OF tne
second mortgage per cent. bonds sh0Wr
by this account to be outstanding could mol
have been exchanged for the y, ,S66,o0o o
debenture bonds, and it would seem perfect
ly clear that IL was wrong 10 deduct the
81 s6G. 900 of debenture bonds from the
amount of indebtedness shown By this &C
count. If this apparent error be corrected
the total indebtedness OF the company q;
shown by this account would be 5000,
240.67.
The account B, No. 2, furnished you by
the New York Office, makes the total lEdept
edness OF the compaDy up to the same pc.
riod, August 81, 1875, $40, 1858 428.1s: so Ba'
there is embraced iu this amouht Slo, ,o3o'
4O1.96 of paid.up stock OF the company
Deducting this, tie amount OF Inc indepi
eduess, by this account, is S33,4Io, ,024.so-a
difference between the Two accounts o
| Sl95. .215S4. But in this aeeount-B, NO. 3
the 1886, 900 Of debenture bonds are treates
,, as already exchanged, and the amcu ~ thet
!. outstandingis is stated at s86, ,e00,s While th
amount of the second mortgage Z per cent
!. bonds, for which they were exchangeh
instead of being increased by "a ,s66,0oo.
stated at 81, 5,426,O 900, the same am1unt le
ported ia the account from the Richnooi
office. One or the other Of these account
must be wrong. The S4,S66,000 Of dehen
|. ture bord, have either been exchanged 10
the second mortgage per cent. bonds
they have nor. If they have been exchange
Lit has not been sho9n when and how IL WI
done; and | thiuk I have showa that III
So 426,O00 of second mortgage 2 per GEN.
bonds, represented by both accounts as a
that are outstanding, could not embrace ii
n amount of the debeDture bonds cxchangs
without a grievous omission in the accoui
, of the Richmond Office.
But if they have not been exchanged tht
must be still due, and are entitled now 10
exchanged for second mortgage bonds, an