The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-10-24
THE OTHER SIDE.

In our issue OF yesterday was given an
eDitome OF the petition OF the Amsterdam
committee 10 be MADE parties to the suit OF
foreclosure, and OF their allegations against
the trustees and the English committee. III
reply to this the counsel OF the trustees
read attidavits from Sir Henry w. Tyler,
Mr.. Colinson. and Mr.. Smthers. These
atfidavits set forth:
/. That the English committee was the
only committee appointed at public meet
ing representing the whole body OF bond
holders.
,. That after the appointment Of the Eng
lisi committee, and before the appointment
OF the Amsterdam committee, the promoters
OF the latter committee, through their chair
man. did offer 10 collect and deposit all the
Dutch bonds with the English committee ii
they received IL commission OF five dollars
per bond.
3. That it was only after the refusal OF
this proposition by the English committee,
and six months after the formation OF the
English committee, that The same Dutch
parties formed the Amsterdam committee.
1. That the Amsterdam committee then
sent dpleratcs to meet the English commit
tee, and approved formally OF all the p!o-
cecdines OF the latter committee. as appears
from LnC lIlIllulc vi Il IIICliH3 S'SiSN ~
Jamcs c. Parrish as chairman.
). That the Amsterdam committee then
demanded OF the English committee that Il
sum OF 100000 OF first Reorganization
bonds should bc set aside us remuneration
for their services; which demand tie Eng
lish committee peremptoriIy refused 70
comply with.
G. That since such refusal the Amsterdam
hn rDD.n
the English committee, carried on for the
benefit of all the bondholdcrs, by every
means in their power, and have sought to
delay the progress OF the SUR, ana TO BE-
come nartics to the suit, with the sole object
in view, as the dcponcnts alicGe, OF obtain
inc some considerable prcuniary advantage
for themselves personally.
:. That the English committee were vol
UNFAIRLY giving their time and labor5 for the
benefit OF the bondholders generally, and
not for their own private interest and gam,
they being large bondholders.
VIRGINIA AND TENNESSEE CERTIFICATES.
The Court next heard argument in the
matter OF petition OF Daniel Stewart ana
other holders of certain elght-pcr-c GER
tifcatcs issued by the Virginia and Tcp-
nessee Railroad Company soon after the
war for matured siX-pcr-ccnt. mortgage
bonds and coupons (Which they could not
paw aegregatng about $4,000. Interest
on these certificates WAS paid up to the time
the road went into the hands OF the re-
ceiyer. The English bondholders claimed
that the certificates in question were nova
ton OF the debt which eXtinguished the
mortgage claim of the holders upon the
road. On the other hand, the petitioners
claimed and showed from documentary eVl.
dence that the certificates were understood
by the holders and were acknowledged soy
the company as mortgage indebtedness
The master reported that these certificates
were not liens. The report was excepted
to, and so the case came up.
The resolution Of the Board OF Director:
under which the certificates were issued ta'
claimed on one handy expressly stated tha
the lien should he perpetuated. But, a
any rate, it did not appear that that resolu
ton was brought to the attention OF the
parties to whom the certificates were issued
| In other words, that they did not contrac
under it or with knowledge OF it. So ont
| party represented.
| About $4,000 Of claims OF this kind wer,
some years ago taken in by tue Atlantic
| Mississippi and Ohio trustees by issue 0
consolidated bonds.
The petition was argued by Mr.. JOSEPH
Bryan, Mr.. Clark, OF Baltimore, and Judge
| Hunter IT. Marshall for petitioners, and Mr.
Choa:e and Mr.. McFarlane for Enslisl
| bondholders and the trustees.
After Mr.. McFarlane's speech the Cour
| took the papers and adjourned
Decisions from the Court as to whetae
| representatives of the Dutch bondholder
shall be made parties to the action, ana IL
to whether the Stewart claim is lien prio
and superior to the Atlantic, Mississippi ant
Ohio mortgage, are expected this morning
THE STATES INTEREsT.
In view OF a statement made (not by thi
naper) that there is no provision 10 the pro
posed decree for the protection OF the State