Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1876-03-17
$4,000, in ties $4,000, in spikes $1,000, and

so on in track laying, excavation, &c.,
amounting to total of about 500. OO0.-
The Committee say these discrepancies
have arisen from clerical errors or from
misapprehension and recommend referring
the matter to a committee from the Boards
of Directors of the two companies.
The report was adopted by the meeting
THE DISCUSSION.
Mr.. Anderson, of Rockbridge, moved q
resolution terminating the present arrange
ment with the B. & o. Co. on the 1st Of
May, and authorizing the directors to LEASE
out the road for term not exceeding two
years, for an amount not less than sufficient
to cover the running expenses and cost Of
administration Of the road.
Judge Houston thought the resolution
ought to be more courteous in expression
MI. Anderson said there was nothing
discourteous in it. 1t was merely bust
ness matter. and was SO stated. Bank.
ruptcy would follow the keeping up of the
present arrangement.
Judge Houston quite agreed with the In
tent Of the resolution but thought a lit
| tie of the suauiter IN mode infused in its
wording would be better. It was some
thing that might be used advantageously
even in purely business matter.
Mr.. Seemuller, of Baltimore, said this
resolution was the most important subject
that would be before the meeting, and he
would accept it if more courteous language
were used. The meeting had just heard read
the result Of an earnest effort to obtain
reply Of that company indicative that
further efforts in that direction would be
useless. The Valley Company was now
solvent and able to pay its debts. Its only
| creditor was courteous one which should
| be a reason for the employment of couDte-
Gus language. He thought it was time to
| stop temporizing and take some positive
step
! Col. M. e. Hartman, agreed with Mr..
Seemuller that it was time for some posi-
tive action.
Mr.. Anderson changed the resolution so
as to ''sincerely regret" the failure of the
application to the B. & o. Co., and to say
that the Valley Co., was reluctantly forced
to take the step for separation.
The length Of the notice given the B. &
o. co. was discussed, and the question as
| to whether there was a contract. Judge
Sheffey, counsel for the Company, said he
knew of no contract; there was merely an
arrangement between the two companies
] BALTIMORE WITH THE VALLEY.
The vote on the resolution was then
taken, and resulted: Ayes, 1922 1.-THE city
OF Baltimore and all the Valley stock
holders); noes, 49, 900 (the Baltimore & Ohio
R. r. CO.. There was dead silence of
amazement after the vote. the Valley men
seeming astounded at that victory.
ARBITRATION.
| It Was suggested that committee be ap-
| pointed by the stockholders for the arbi-
tration of the unadjusted accounts with
! the B. & o. Co.
| Mr.. Seemuller, of Baltimore, thought
| this whole matter had better be left in the
hands Of the Directors. The matter had
already been discussed at meeting of the
Board, and the probability Of the B. & u.
refusing to submit to arbitration. They
! did not expect such a refusal, but there
were differences which had arisen partly
from clerical errors, and partly in a disa-
greement on facts, which would have to
! be decided eduitably, and it was best to
leave it to the Directors, who might take
any steps afterwards found necessary
| Mr.. Seemuller's view was adopted.
On motion of Judge Houston, a resolu-
ton approving the election of E.P. Pendle-
ton by the Board, in place of Mr.. johnson,
resigned, was adopted.
The meeting then adjourned until the
annual meeting in November, unless soon
er called by the Board of Directors.