The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-11-26
local MATTERS.
c. & 0. r. r.
r1rERrROM WICkHAM.
NJ Steger's Financial Statement
Reviewed.
,ppoRr OF MR. YsON.
PROSPECTS OF THE COMPANY.
,rr r0GKLA WYERS HERE.

,rr roRKL LAWYERS MERE.
r,c.h interest In the case Of the CheSa-
,la and Ohio railroad, now pending IN the
1s.al states Circuit Court, was created yes
....f,y Us TIE arrival in the city OF number
=. rr.r;nruislcd counsel Of the company.
nav will probably appear before the court
''.l,y for the purpose Of making some mo-
...r % advance the interests OF the large
..,rrrr Of bond ard stockholders whom
.afY represent.
"r.rr'y,r TYSON Yesterday filed with the
,,ar. of the United States Circuit Court his
-. -ruori - permanent receiver.
:, neral Wil!ams C.. Wichbam, rce-presi-
p, q, the con pary, sends US the following
Reply 20 Mr. J. o. Steger.
r,,ss ,rrAKg AND ONO RAILROAD COMPANY,
y..v.pEg>,pE>T's OFFICE. RICHMOND, VA,
Nay,n,hrr -. lS15.- EditGrS Of the DIS
-. h. Gentl,men,-i was absent from town
yesterday. and therefore did not see your
:,,.r containing Mr.. S:eger's letter until this
:. .ang.
Eng somrH hat lmbued with what some
ra-haps NAV cal an "old-fogy" idea that
matter, coram llliIce are not generally pro-
r. Tor newspaper discussion, | have care
flng refraiueL from giving anything to the
p,-,. that rclted to the troubles that sur.
rounded the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad
Company, but ] have always made formal
rroort, TO the president and directors on Ill
matters on which thought they should have
4g views.
The publication Of Mr.. Steger'S letter in
veu- paper makes it proper that should
10, l,n ttn T.
+, which submitted TO The directory. |
therefore hand you copy with the request
TIA, vou will publish it with this introduc-
.o.y note. Yours truly,
WILLIAMS g. WlcKHAM,
Vice President.
CHESAPEAKE AND ONO RAILROAD COMPANY
VICE PRESIDENTS OFFICE, RICHMOND, VA.
November Is, 1S75.-I To the President ana
Directors Of the Chesapeake and OHIO RAT
ro5J Company: Gentlemen,-ln calling
;9ur attention TO letter OF Mr.. Steger, hi:
counsel, to the receiver Of this company
ig.t published, it is proper that should
make some comments on 1t.
This letter purports to be review o.
c..taiu information furnished the receiver
,-am The EicAnond and New York offices o.
,.i, COMPANY. and to be published for lht
!s,orlu4liOn Of parties interested ID the
road: and the tables furnished the receiver
a!r Published with the letter.
Nr. >.oger SITS out with the declaration
t.ai accounts furnished by the two Offices
NE, so variant that he cannot reconcile
t..m." | uronuse, in my review Of bis letter
l. -aow lnaL there IS no difficulty whatever
H. rcgoaclhng any yariunces that appear.
lni,.d. a study of the tables themselves
would have rcconcIcd most Of them, and
others could have been explained at once 10y
Ii" BOOK. keeper a, the Richmond Clhce had
Ay Steer asked 1 question. First,
THE COST OF THE ROAD
GA PAGE ) Mr.. Stcger says that the Rich.
mouG office states the cost o. the road at 49,.
,.:i:J. 4%%4 IA, whilst the New Io,k office fixes
il Al 50, ,269 GSO.0G. and then, in the same
ctiU>r. Mir. Steger himself partially "recon
c.s,s : the variance" by showing that the New
York office charges TO cost Of road SO ,49S.-
800 0; common stock and 81, $50 o4S.33 OF in
trr,>. paid during construction, and on page
Q 9CompIctes the reconciliation Of the variance
Jy showing that the New York office also
charges cost of road with So, ,5G2, ,013.5T paid
for discount and commissions on sale OF
bond, which is about all the variance in the
which are sci out in each statement in fullest
detail a orce reconcile the variance, ana II
Mr. Sicgrr had examined all the papers fur.
n!>htd The receiver by me be would have
found Il letter OF mine written to Mr. Tyson
on the 2Gh Of October, and after the
statement from the Richmond office had been
put in his hands BY tue book.keeper, in
which distinctly stated that the cost oil the
~. bod OF n
O. tie con papy; that the Richmond Cfhce
lad no right to adopt policy Of stating the
account, and that tns New York office might
adopt policy embracing such items as ln-
tvrest, discount, e.. so that had he look!d
Tor The reconciliation Of that variance he
Wo~li have found it ready to bis hand. In
Iii, connection, on page be declares THAT
!! :, obvious that no part Of this amount
v, Il. 10 the construction OF the road" NOW,
/ DO not think il at all obvious; tue cost ot
llr road is not only The actual money eH'
l"Dutuin grading, super,tructure,anosq equip
Mrnt, bat it IS made up OF every Item tna''
III connection with construction, imposes
iab!.Ily on the company, whether 1t be IN
tae shape Of money received on loan, or IN
tere>t or commissions paid in ralsirg those
loans, or any other items Of expenditure,
tVrn II in the shape Of a bonus OF stoch
10 induce the loans. On the same page Mr..
>teser asserts that the Blue Ridge railroad,
clarged ia cost Of road and assets at S2,27l,-
l3'.53, only cost the company, say, $500 600.
Now, in hi, statement Mr.. Steger has fallen
INTO u grave error for one who undertakes to
"ihe Tor the information Of those who are
IN the great property ofthe Chesa.
,,eake and Ohio railroad. The cost Of the
Blue Ridge railroad to the Chesapeake and
OA!o Railroad Company is exactly and cor
''cl!y given ia the statements Of both offices,
'nQ the New York office shows bow il was
paid for-yiz., with S271 ,667 so paid in tolls |
% the State, which built Il, and, in addition,
>-,oVQ,O00 Of common stock paid 10 the par. |
lts who furnished the company the means |
% pay the State the value which the CoriDg- |
on and Ohio commissioners fixed upon the |
property, that being the agreement made in |
'tsard TO it at period when none knew
what price those commissioners would IS |
'e>s. l had good deal to do with the |
making Of that agreement, and believe that
l was most advantageous one for all
Interested in the Chesapeake and Ohio rail-
DAD. do not know Why be, in giving In.
oTmatloD on this point to those interested 10
ne COMPANY, should not have informed them