The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-05-12
AGAINST THE STATE.
Ti6 Chesapeake Canal Suit Decided
fn FaSor, or assssrs. iyoanaon
.E.:,$.3ps1sE .St. and Poe - fi.slp:Tzets ~

.';.:s4es,s ~. and Foe .saas15st q
OPINION, OF yrDGE WEILFo ORD REaI,ERE1
-sATUR DAY2aTRE CONTRACTS MADE BY
THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS WITH
GENERAL FRADLEg = T. JOHNSON AND
THE NEssRs. FOE PROPER ERANDsLEGAL-
CONDUCT OF COUNSEL FAIR, opEN. AND
JgsT.-TRE SUIT IMPROPERLY BROUGHT
AND THE BILL DIsMEssED-THE ATToR-
i SEy-GENfRAIi PROPOSES TO TAKE An
APPEAL. ..a... ,,is a.1s IS III ,,.s.-
Judge Wexford on Saturday read his de.
cision in The case Of The Common wealth
against General Bradley T.. Johnson add the
Messrs. Poe.i IL was q full history OK the
matter, and an able discussion OF the law
points raised, aud IL published in full
wouId filG nine or ten columns CT this
paper an,t;. ~ trfsaN
The starting point in this controversy IS
the date OF the adoption by the General
Assembly of Virginia Of the Joint resolu-
ton OF February 26, 1867. which is as fol-
lows: ,,-. ..,.,..' = .l,...L,
Beitresolved blythe Geaer1l Assemtiyo Of
Yirginiu, That the, Board OF Public, Works
be and they are hereby authorized and d.
Judgment may be. necessary and proper to
realize the preferred liens OF the State upon
the tolls and rGveuues OF the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Company; andfOrfhat pur-
pose to contract with.eounsel for the en-
forcement Of said hens in concert with
other holders OF similar liens: Provided,
homever, That the compensation OF such
counsel shalt be contingent only, and shall
be paid by said Board only out Of the pro-
ceeds TO be realized from such proceedings
or the debts aud liens secured thereby.
The day after this resolution was ,pas red
the Board OF Public Works made their orig
inal contract with the defendants, employ
ing them as the attorneys for the State, Of
date February 27, 1851. This contract was
subsequently, modified, and IN amended
CONTRACTS eXecuted upon the 5th day of
March, 1867. - = %lt ,.ss "n-,tl".
From time to time the defendants made
reports to the Board Of Public Works OF
their action under the contract, and partial
settlements were made'prior to january 3,
1879. Upon that day a tna settlement was
had and the accounts closed by resolution
of the Board. Under this nnal settlement
the defendants were permitted TO retain rs
their compensation for services rendered
under the contract large sums OF money
collected for the State from the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Company and claims OF the
State against the said company, which ut
that time were yet unpaid.
The bin In this case is filed in the nnmc
OF the State Of Virginia, and claims that Dy
reason of this action OF the Board OF PUBLIC
Works the state has suffered great dctri-
ment: that she is not bound by the action
OF the Board in the premises, and has
right to require of the defendants full ac-
counting for all moneys received by them
from the canal company, and all claims OF
hers placed under their cont1OI,' and to
recovery from the. defendants OF large
balance OF money in their hands to when
sheis entitled. -, - ."..'-f..
This action OF the Board OF Public
Works, so far as it may be relied upon by
the defendants, is repudiated for double
reason: ~ ~
1st. That it was in excess OF any author
ity conferred upon the Board to conclude
the State; and .4...
I'd. That it was induced by fraud upon
the part Of the defendants. !.
Eil this nav 'te true, and yet the bin must
be dismissed, II, as is insisted by the defend
ants, the suit has been brought without the
authority OF law, and the State OF Virginia,
though nominalIy she complainant, is not
before the court. '-.." Il. -
T propose to consider each Of these ques-
| tions in the order named: 1850
l. First, then, ms TO the question OF ultra
u;reS:
In constituting the Joint resolution referred
| to we must primarily: look TO the subject
matter Of the legislation under the crcum-
stances surrounding the General Assembly
at the time. .st.Y: -..;:'H1l E|E1:'i-'1
THE STATES INTEREST IN, THE CANAL.
What, then, was the interest OF the State
OF Virginia in the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal Company? : '...','.' '.'. -"
The Judge then goes on to examine the
claims and interests that. Virginia bad in
the canal company. BY the act Of 1898 she
subs cribed for $3.50, ,0G0 Of stock, and by her
acts OF l847 and 1s49 the Board Of Public
Works were directed to examine: into GER
tain facts, and when they certified they were
satisfied that the States interests were pro-
pcrIy protected. Then they were author-
| fZed to atix the guaranty OF the' State TO
| $500, zoo of the bonds ofthe canal company.
| This wSas done, and by this action and ,dl-
rcctio5n OF the Board OF Public Works the
State became bound Tor $5O0,000.' Suose-
auentfy, by the iaiIure Of Seiden, W1thers
| i& Co. the State became the assignee from
them OF claims against the canal company
for, a large amount, The canal company
failing to pay the Interest on its bonds, Ylrr
rinia paid it from 1851 p,to 1851, amount
! ing In all ito about 1905. 600: 3 All, evidence
| OF this, payment by Virginia was lost eX-
cent for S34,5O0, for Which the canal COM
pany had given hei certificate for the cou-
mons which Virginia had paid, and which
alone could prove her. claim against 'the
conpany-had been lostog stolen from the
CAPITOL A pril 2, 1865. ",' ~. = ~ =! - -..' "
The State Of Maryland owning a large
majority Of the tstock OF the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Company bad entire. con
troll OF the corporation Her pccuniary In
terests being postponed to that OF the oond-
holders, the management OF the"work as
source OF revenue became to her representa-
Lives matter OF comparative indifference,
LAND the interests Of the bondholders were
| In the custody of parties who had practi-
cally neither interests nor disposition. to
protect them. The corporation YVES there.
fore habitually, openly, and VIGOROUSLY
managed to, subserve the interests OF one or
the other political party which might obtain
control of the State. This condition OF
things naturally oceasioned solicitude with
the bondhoiders, and before the war efforts
| were made to obtain from the State OF Mn.
ryland change in the organization and
management OF the company. The, Legis.
| Iature OF Virginia, January 26, 1850
IfActs 1S59.'60, pages 693 and 694), adopted
Joint resolutions instructing the Attor
ner- General to proceed to Annapoll;
and,to epdeavor.to procure. by her own ex'
| ertious and by cooperation with Inc. otne'
! parties interested friendly and consideratt
| legislation from the State OF Maryland; anc
unon the next day another resolution IN
| .tr,,o,;,,c, tho Ia kftornav.(IeneIal to Dursu{