The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-10-23
The Vermont and Canada Railroad


The annual meeting of the Vermont and
Canada railroad was held at Bellows Falls,
Thnrshav nr James r. Nichols of
Haverhill, Mass, presented the following
report:
To Tie Stockholders Of tie Vermont and Can
ada Railf0ad. ...,.t
In presenting n brief report of the events
OF the past year, AS connected with your
property, 1t is not deemed necessary to ex-
tend the retrospect beyand the meeting OF
the company at Bellows Falls, April 16,
when action was taken upon the sale of the
road to the Central Vermont, and when
you were fully informed of the condition
Of your affairs. At that meeting, and tor
several weeks prior, evidence was afforded
that difference of views prevailed in your
board Of directors. There was not unanim-
ity respecting the transfer of the road by
sale to the Vermont Central some of the
conditions being strenuously opposed by a
nnority of the board. You decided, how
ever by vote of nearly two to one in favor
OF the sale upon the terms and conditions as
recommended, and your president was en-
powered to execute the papers as soon as
practicable. Six months have elapsed
since this action was taken and the papers
remain unexecuted. Why this delay =? , In
the answer to this inquiry is contained
about all that is important to present In
this report. The hndrances to the fulfill
ment of your wishes were present at the
meeting where they were made known.
On the instant that it adjourned service
was made upon your president and direct
ors requiring them to appear before the SUI
preme court OF Vermont to show cause
why they should not be enjoined from exc
cutting portion OF the papers. Motion was
made before Judge Barrett, of
Woodstock, on the 18th day OF May, +.
A. Brooks, esq, one of your directors,
appearing and arguing the case in behalf
OF the petitioners, and the Hon. c.. w.
Willard of Montpelier, counsel for your
road, appeared to oppose the Injunction.
Judge Barrett, after the hearing, at the
close of a very able review of the case, re-
fused the injunction, thus furnishing a
gratifying instance of decision apparently
favorable to your interest in the courts of
Vermont. This temporary injunction was
sought on the petition of parties opposed to
the sale of your road, and the contest was
one wageA by this minority against the ma
jority of the stockholders. Although the
proceeding was not abandoned, we were
advised that the refusal to grant the tenn
porary injunction left your president
liberty to carry out the wishes of the ma.
jorty. but other obstacles almost immedi-
ately arose which have not been removed.
Another bill seeking an injunction was
filed in Chancellor Royce's court at st. AL
bans by Messrs. Goldman and johnson of
Boston, attorneys for certain parties hold
ing bonds alleged to be guaranteed by the
Vermont and Canada road. This ipiupc-
ton, which was granted and Is still in
force, restraints US from distributing any
bonds we might receive from the Central
Vermont in carrying out the SALE 1t has
not been deemed necessary as yet to have a
formal hearing on this bill. Still other
complications and difficulties have; arisen.
which in themselves were sufficient Ia
postpone or entirely defeat the sale of
your property. The annual meeting of the
Central Vermont company was held at st.
Adams on the 10th of May last. At that
meeting stormy sceue occurred, occasion
ed by the attempt of John b. Page, ESQ.
president of the Rutland road, and Others,
TO obtain control of the Vermont Central.
by u skillful maneuvre ON the part of Gov
ernor Smith, which 1t 10 unnecessary here
to detail, he succeeded in holding control
of the meeting, and the list of directors
headed by him was declared elected by the
inspectors. The legality of this election
Governor Page and his supporters deny,
aud clam that the holding of the Central
Vermont by Governor Smith is a usurpa-
ton aud fraud. 1t is unnecessary to ex-
press opinions rs to the rights or the legal
ity of the actions of either of the parties to
this new contest. 1t concerns us only 40
far as 1t affects the interests of the Yer
mont and Canada road. 1t Is clear II would
be unwise to enter into important business
contracts with either of the contending
parties, so long as 1t is uncertain which Is
competent to sign papers possessing legal
force. The questions at issue between the
contestants have been taken to the courts