Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1876-09-01
LFrom the New York Timesl
TIlden' . Railroad swindIe.

l0e answer Ol Dduuel DE- 1llueu Huu 0lS
conreres to the suit brought against him
and them by the Terre Haute, Alton and
st. Louis Railroad Company, possesses
some interest at the present time to the
voters of tho country as showing the code
of morals on which the Democratic candi-
date bases his notions Of correct practice
and honest dealing. The railroad in ques-
tion, II is admitted on all sides, was very
much embarrassed in It's finances after the
panic of 1857. Tilden and bis associates
were appointed a committee TO purchase
the road and to reorganize it. The powers
given them were very sweeping and ample
for the purposes of their trust, awarding to
them even the right to purchase the road
in their own names. 1t is admitted by all
that they had no powers save such as were
conferred on them for these purposes. Yet
how does Mr.. Tilden look at the matter,
or, what is more TO the purpose, how did he
act? lie purchased the road, with the 9TH
ers, as he admits, but be goes on to say
that they did so in their individual capaci-
ties-that is, they acquired the absolute
right and title to the franchises, powers,
property, &c, of the road for themselves
personally. If they owed any alegience
TO or assumed any agency for, any one,
says Tilden through his appointee, James
p. Sinnott, they did so for such of the first
and second mortgage bondholders OF the
old road as signed the agreement constltut-
ing them purchasing committee. They
had no II iced of troubling themselves with
the interests of the other bond and stock
holders and tho general creditors, who bad
paid out their money on The credit and
faith of the company. They had given no
legal pledge TO these latter who had, there
fore, no legal technical right to call them
10 account. These latter creditors could
not bring Mr.. Tiden and his colleagues
into court and force them TO disgorge some
of their plumber. They could therefore be
safely disregarded, at least so far as un-
pleasant legal consequences were concern
ed. So Tilden and the rest go on 10 say
that they acted for themselves alone in
buying the railroad, &c. and in issuing its
stocks and bonds to suit their own tastes
under the convenient Illinois statue, which
gave them almost unlimited power in this
direction.
Here it will be seen that they deny even
the rights OF those who appointed them and
gave them the power 10 do anything in the
matter. Hero also comes in the story of
how Tilden aud the others acted in regard
to getting rid of the Indebtedness of the
company. They had to pay the first and
second mortgage bondholders, because
these latter had the power of calling them
to account. So Tiden et al. went on TO is
sue their unlimited supply Of bonds and
they paid off these certain mortgage bond
holders by giving them some of the new
bonds. Then, however, came the other
creditors. To these Mr.. Tilden and his CO.
adj utors said, "You have no right to call
on us 10 pay you. 1t is true, you loaned
the company money. 1t is true that it is
indebted 10 you in consequence. But we
are reorganizing. We are only paying off
those who can force us to pay their claims,
and as you cannot compel us to act in this
regard we need not pay you, and what is
more we shall not pay you, your demands,
no matter how just they may be-"
This is the story put in plain English OF
one, and very important, side of the case.
Transpose the tale and bring 1t down to
the ordinary business transactions of
tradesmen, and it amounts 10 simply this
that if a man has six or eight large credit
ors and he fails in business, he has only to
pay off the first two of them and let the
others whistle for their money. In case of
a bankruptcy under the United States laws,
or of an insolvent assignment under the
tot 1o . la daaDnoI
table by all if the register or assignee, AFTER
knowledge of all the claims against the
bankrupt or insolvent, were to pay of sim
ply one or two of numerous creditors, and
then not only refuse 10 pay off the other
creditors, but pocket the remainder OF the
assets as his own property. Would 1t or
could il possibly be considered aught else
than disrepulable if in such case the one or
two creditors were the ones who had
thrown the debtor into bankruptcy, or had
compelled him to make the assignment?
Yet how does this case differ from the one
now under consideration? Tilden and his
associates were given absolute power to re-
organize the road in any way they saw tit.
They could issue bonds TO any amount and
in any proportions 10 any kind or descrip-
tions of creditors. The issue and distribu-
tion of bonds in their case were acts exact
ly synonymous with the distribution of as
sets by au assignee. They deliberately so
to work, however, 10 shut out all the claims
the holders of which could not call them to
account legally. They then go to work
aud issue, under an accommo odating stat
ute, an enormous and more than needed
quantity of bonds, a portion of which they
distribute among such claimants as had the
legal power to bring them into court. They
keep for their own purposes the remainder
-"for fees and expenses" they say. 1t
never occurred to them to pay the honest
debts of the corporation pro rata and take
their percentages also ratably on the bonds
issued. 1t was so much easier, and they
could hide their own operations so much
the better, If they simply paid such credit
ors as they were technically obliged to pay
and left the others to their "own abomi-
nable devices"-that Is, gave them moth
ing. They never realized that common
honesty required them to pay all the debts
as well as they could. They were bound,
they say, by the agreements made with
''certain, but not alp of the first and Sec
ond mortgage bondholders. But just be-
fore this assertion they say they were Civ
en- absolute power in the matter, their
hands not being tied in the least; that they
purchased the old road and issued its
bonds, OF their own volltion, to any
amounts they saw fit; and that they sold
the road, as they performed all their other
acts, as the real owners of its property, &c.
In all these acts they were certainly not
bound by the agreement with "certaln but