Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1876-04-14

Central Verm ont Quo Warranio.
An article 10 the Boston AaUeriISeT con.
tains some sharp criticisms upon the So
preme Court of Vermont IN the decision OF
this case, because the court did not declare
the election of the officers illegal, and take
the Central Vermont Railroad out Of their
possession The writer admits that the cor
poration owned two thousand three hundred
and fifty shares Of is own stock. And it
seems tna5 the validity Of the sale OF this
stock was really the turning point of the
case. Judge Redfeld, in delivering the
opinion % the court, among other taings,
said
"rhe question e as to the validity o. the sale to
Ian ID aud AiIis. n 1t merely for voting. II
Was d sham q q fraud bat Lan-aUn swears that
il WIS also O. raise money 10 meet necessity o.
me corp.5aIun. TINS proc. not eontrAd cited. 1t
ls not IN the .ruvncu o. the court to ina -lue
dtions taat TIE proof does not establish The sale
aypears L. uate D-uu a-tual colorado alb
solu e ana Eui CONDITIONAL ana has been 60 treated
hy LHu-uuu uud the Gu DOratiOn. The act Of the
sale Wa al the most W dazzle sut not void. Those
ella L. be Jared cJud nave applied 10
OF tquiu o have Ian don aud Mills req sirea 10
hold the Fl trast fUr all but that cleo
TIVE right when they cid mol take"
Mr. LaDgdon is one Of the most reliable
men IN tle STATE. and he stated positively
that he paid his money for his share OF the
stock IN coed faith and ne has retained il
ever since that time, entering into the bus
iuess OF the road a. one OF the directors
Now, then, Is there any legal minded
man ~ IIe world that can honestly say that
the court could have Decided iisrentiy up
on any known principle OF law 80 long as
Mr.. LangdOn' ) testimony was not disputed?
Toe writer OF the article IL the Boston Ad-
UeTtiSer rehearses the facts OF the case but
shows no principle OF law BY which the
court could have set aside this sale. HIS
criticisms are OF a wholesale sweeping na-
ture. accusing the courts Of Vermont OF
neg iect in upholdlng the hts OF property,
but he does not point To any law by which |
they could have decided the other way HIS |
are ike the nelghbOrhOOo gOs- |
sip We sometimes hear about district |
school, everything II general and nothing |
IL particular. Inc truth Is, the court fol- |
lowed the law, and 1t does not often, II |
ever. happen that a decision founded on |
these settled principles-the accumulated |
wisdom VI the ages-works any injury to !
the rights Of property. Ii certainly did not /
in the Central Vermont quo icarrdnto case.
Tor the stock has been advancing IN the |
market ever since THAI decision. That |
decision was q protection to the property. !
Ii was the defeat Of an organization Of men
that aimed at nothing less than the |
destruction OF great property. These /
nen have tried by every means in their
power to destroy this great thorough
are from Chicago to Boston - by
ase charges against lie managers
ly the most searching investigation OF az
counts, both before the Legislature and the
courts bS all manner OF petitions for in
auctions 10 discunnect the leased roads
md 50 disntegrate the consolidated man
lgeDeDt and break the line up ,anj separate
zach OF the original ruads so ss to be little
Dad by itself running from nowhere 10 no
Were and ID thAt way to divert the Immense
hOugh business over competing lines and
uto other ciiies-in all Of which they have
allied. utterly, because they had no proof of
heir charges and allegations against Gov.
smith and his associates, who have built
Up this immense business by superior in
Iustry and skill. g.