The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-03-31
THE NORTH LOUISIANA RAILROAD
LITIGATION.


The bolaness of Radical office holders
and Radical thieves, the cool impu-
dence Of such rascals, was never better
exempliiied than by the demands which
the defendants -John T. Ludeling,
John Ray and their associates-make in
this case against the plaintiffs, the first
mortgage creditors Of the property. In
q recent article published in tho
DEMOCRAT Of March 19) it was stated
that Ludeling, Ray and associates
claimed of these plaintiffs the sum OF
81, G63 1913 60, also balance Of interest
amounting to 1851 ,531 80, together the
sum Of So, OPS, $50 OF. That they had also
filed in court statement OF their earn
ings from the operations OF tho road
and other receipts out OF the property
amounting to 1929, 1913 %, and deducting
receipts from expenditures the account
showed an excess Of expenditures over
receipts OF $734,5O AZ, and adding
thereto 1851 ,53l 3s, balance of interest,
the total sumwas reached Of 81, O96 ,O31 IS.
This latter sum Ludeling, Ray and asso-
ciates claim from the plaintiffs in
the suit, alleging and contending that
they are entitled to it by the law Of
Louisiana, before the railroad can be
sold for account of the first mortgage
bondholders.
Among these expenditures is every
conceivable charge which the de-
PENDANTS could trump up. From
the gross amount ($2,O25,5 $50 on,
we are sure any honest chancellor
would, at once and without evidence,
strike out the sum Of 1874 500 AZ, because
even an. agent, administrator or trustee
Of an estate is not permitted to expend,
except by express permission OF the
court, one dollar in excess Of the income
Of the estate for any purpose whatever.
An agent, administrator or trustee
might perhaps be permitted by the
court, under certain circumstances, and
II it were necessary for the interest Of
the owners OF the property, to expend
more-say in necessary repairs and i'm
provements OF the property, but not
otherwise. But Ludeling, Ray and asso-
ciates were in no such category. They
tees for anybody but themselves. They
had no more authority to repair and
work this railroad than the thief who
steals, say, your carriage from your
stable, has authority to hire it out, run 1t
or keep it in repair for his own account
at your expense. The case is parallel
one to that Of Ludeling, Ray and asso-
ciates. OF course, in the case we have
supposed, the thief would be considered
very impudent rascal if, when over
taken by the officers of the law set in
motion by you to recover your property,
he were to send you little bill Of about
double the value of the carriage. for
expenses he has incurred for certain re-
pairs and improvements he has made
upon it, and in addition to this were to
claim priority, lien or privilege for
his expenses over you as the owner
Of the carriage. Such demand
would no doubt be secuted at by
you and by the court, and properly
so. A thief has no rights except to be
punished for his crime. Now that is
precisely what Ludeling, Ray and asso-
ciates have done; they are in the cate
CORY Of thieves. They ought to be very
thankful that they are not sent to look
out from behind the bars of prison.
But place them in the position and give
them the rights of an agent, admins
traitor or trustee who has prudently and
honestly managed the trust estate, and
then a court Of equity would, we say,
strike 1874, 500, If not more, out OF their
account entirely. This would leave the
debit and credit sides OF the account
about equal. and their claim for bal
ance would be extinguished.
A statement of the charges OF which
the enormous account OF 50 ,025, $50 OF is
composed, we now submit to our