The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-05-14
THE RAILROAD APPROPRIATION.
Answer Of Ames to the Petition of Nor
gam In the United states
Circuit Court.

Judge John A. Campbell. solicitor Of Frank
M. Ames, on Saturday flied in ths United States
Circuit Court the following answer in the two
cases, Morgan's Louisiana and Texas Rail-
road and Steamship Company also Louisiana
Western Railroad Company vs.. Frank M. Ames,
trustee:
The said Frank M. Ames comes and for an
swer to the demand of the plaintiff saith:
l. That the New Orleans. Mobile and Texas
trust to Oakes Ames and E. b. Morgan. dated
March ID. 1870 and January /. 1872. conveyed
the property specified In the application to Sc
bonds are all ontstand ng, and are In the hands
Of great number of holders, with coupons Of
That nndsr % deed Of sale Gi in this court the
| respondent purchased in 1874 this property
under the, provisions, of tho deed OF trust. in
all Of the property described in the deeds afore-
| said and now holds the same In trust for tho
8. This respondent, prior to the date Of this
application by tho said plai ntiffs, obtained an
order loE the sale Of all Of the property afore-
dir, sssd notice to all the bondhoders known m
to him or Of whose connection with the proper
ty he had information. advising them Of the
ord r of tho court and Of his determination to
sell the property on May 81, 1873, and also adver-
tised the same for sale in the New Orleans Plea
D."e, and the Tribune, paper published In the
very large proportion of all the bondoders are
notified Of the time. place and conditions of
sale.
4. This respondent SAYS that Joseph selig-
man. Henry Morgan. Edwin d. Morgan. George
Bliss and Harrison Durkee. are an executive
dollars In the bonds aforesaid, and instruct the
trustee to oppose the expropriation aforesaid
6. These respondents oppose the same be-
cause the property Is mortgaged in block for
the payment OF all the bonds, and that the prop
erty is held for the common benefit and should
be sold, 50 as to have the same ownership and
q n Drisa san1 iv,
the petition apart from the others would impair
the value OF the whole.
6. For If the bOndholders should conclude to
finish tho railroad from Donaldsonyille to YER
millionyille. and thence to the Texas line. they
would make a connection between New Orleans
and Houston. In Texas, and that connection
OF the same point In Morgan City and Vernil-
lionville. BY the company aforesaid. over the
proposed line, would produce a destructive and
| ex xhausting competition between the parties
7. That the section of railroad which the
plaintiffs seek to appropriate was purchased in
order that such competition should not arise.
.. The defendant says that the Improvement
OF this property has been hndered by Charles
Morgan. who since 1874 has been suing your re-
| sDondents to recover this property as his own,
and the suit is PENDING In the Supreme Court
Of the United States, and the title to the prop
erty will not be fully determined till that suit is
determined. This suit originated In this court,
| and your respondent Graves reference to the
record
Q. Yonr respondent affirms that his constitu-
ents are ready and willing to commence work
| on their railroad. provided the same falls into
| thirty first Of May. and that they are ready to
pay for the property Its value and that no inter-
ference with that sale would be just to the bond
holders. Any person desiring the prot erty may
purchase at the sale If he pays the value thereof.
10. This defendant has not been able or willing
fully adjusted and until there was q fair pros
pect that the work would be remuneratlve.
| There has been snch depression In prices
and In business that such prospect did not