The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-06-05

deeds are published almost without COM
ment.
ions. C0LLINsoN.
OGDEN, BoWEs & Co..
6 A AUSTIN FRIARS.
LONDON, E. c., 18th May ,-1S79. )
ATLANTIC, MISSISSIPPI AND OHIO RAILROAD
COMPANY.
Dear Sill have carefully perused your
letter TO the editors of the Richmond DIS
match under date Odd March last, and also
| The replies OF General Malone and Mr..
Cutbbert, inserted in the Richmond wing
of tine 3ist idem, and I find that the state
men;s made by you relating to- matters OF
account are all substantially correct.
Except in regard to one item. neither
General Malone nor Mr.. Cuthhert would
seem 10 deny that the payments anlmad-
yerted upon by you were made, but SIMPLY
| to affirm that they were not made at the eN-
| pense of the Atlantic, Mississippi and ONO
Rairoad Company.
The executed item is that OF SIS, 200 men
toned in your letter under tue heading
..Soutbsde Division" as having been Ie:
ceiyed by General Malone in respect OF
hotel expenses at Richmond between Jul ),
1870, and March, 1871, but which both the
| General and Mr.. Cuthbert state cannot be
Traced in the Southside Divisional books.
| find. however, on referring to my papers,
that the amount in question is entered on
The Southside books us having been paid TO
General Malone in five sums, as lolloWs ::
1S7O-June 90, $3.50; July 81, Sl.I00.
1S71-March s, 5000; Maich 49, s2'ooo
March 90, $4,000. Total, $4,000.
With regard to tue only point. then.
which seems to be seriously contested by
General Malone namely, whether the eX-
penditure in respect OF the Richmond Wing
and other matters :lludcd to by you can De
said to have been at the cost OF the Atlantic,
Mississippi and Ohio Company-it appears
to me that tue question, rightly viewed.
must receive an affirmative reply. 1t is trne
that most OF the items were charged through
subsidiary ledgers, opened by tue Atlantic.
Mississippi and Ohio Company for the pur-
pose OF keeping the divisional accounts dis
| tinct. in compliance with the provisions OF
| the act OF consolidation; but, having regard
TO the fact that the Atlantic, Mississippi and
| Ohio Company bad general charge Gp0I
the whole undertaking for the amoTnt Of
the consolidated lean, principal and inter
est. subject Only 10 the outstanding mort
cage bonds secured by Il charge on the serc-
| raj divisions, it is clear that any moneys un-
necessarily CT Improperly expended must
have been detrimental TO the Atlantic, NJ is.
Sissippi and Ohio bondhotlcrs, because such
expenditure obviously lcsScned the funds
available for the payment OF the interest on
| their bonds.
Thus the question whether the particular
| division I'm whose name the money vas eX-
pended had at the time the expenditure was
| made Il surplus or not would seem to be
altogether an lmmaterlal one; but rs Gen
rral Malone has laid such great stress upon
TIE healthy financial condition III or about
the date of consolidation OF the Norfolk
and Petersburg division, to which, or ratl-
or, in the accounts Of which, 50 large Il pro-
portion OF the expenditure in question has
been charged, I think it right to point out
that, while reproducing you for having only
mentioned the floating debt of this division
at tue close of the fiscal year ending Sep
TENDER, 1871, he has himself failed 10 men
ton that the sum Of S2l3,229, entered a>
due by individuals, and forming part ol
The S3S3.517. the amount at which the assets
Of this division are returned in the com.
pany's own published accounts, Is made up
chicfly-I might say almost en;irciy-oi
| claims against the SouthSdG and virginia
and Tennessee divisions. These cltlns,
however, can scarcely be regarded Is faill'
bic assets, and il they are eliminated from
| the accounts, and the investments written
| down to their market or selling value, par
| ticuarly the property at lyor and the ' IT.
rinia State bonds for $4,000. the liabilities
| OF the Norfolk and Petersburg division
at the close OF the year 1871 would DC
found to have exceeded the assets a!
tile same dale by very considerable
ameunt-even assuming the railway and
the rolling stock to have been worth the
sum at which they then stoud in the com
panN's books.
With regard to the fifth paragraph OF Mr.
CutbbeIt's letter Enormously numbered
six in the Richmond WhiG), the words
there quoted-"all payments were made by
direction Of General Malone "-when read
with the rest OF the passage quoted in your
letter to the Richmond Dispatch, obviously
refer only to the extraordinary payments
charged to profit and loss; and Mr.. Cuth-
bert's letter plainly confirms the correctness
OF the statement, for none of the payments
under discussion were made through the
departments, and according, therefore, TO
| his own admission they could only have
| been made by the direction OF the president
or with his approval. This is, moreover,
conclGsively proved by the vouchers, all Of
which bear evidence that they were, in
some way or other, brought to General MAJ
homes notice and approved by hun. I did
not have copies OF these vouchers taken,
| but the originals were returned by ne
| TO Mr.. Cuthbert, and no doubt, il
necessary. copies can now be pro-
cured. In every case they will be
found to confirm the extracts given by me
in the profit and loss accounts; and it must
! be within the recollection Of Mr.. Cuthhert
that expressly called his attention to the
peculiar wording of many OF the receipts,
| pointing out to him the unfavorable con-
structiOn which must be put upon the Ian
guage in which they were couched, and
| using that as an argument with him for sup
plying me with information as to how the
moneys had been applied. In reply,
however, he told me that he could not
give me any information beyond that
contained in the receipts themselves, and
I was compelled thei efore to content
myself with the eytropts rjvan in MP ra.