Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1880-02-05
'Saso 4. a. sf. Canal EuIt.

| 'hL tu'!lpHhS NC n:aCau III INC HlnuS Cl re.
rtivcr, 10 be appointed by the court.
Tio &Ds"cT s@ta forth that il complainant i
tic boi:. iia" owner Of $50 600 worti. OF bond
ne tcliir"d thcm very shortly before tho fi.ir4
o. 'ho hi OF c,mpmini; that they were assign
"a by ,Inu. Stewart, of Virginia, to c,mplainan
lhr ihn express lu:rGsh of tho Institution O
ic eni. II i. Admitted that before 1874 man,
riIIlon4 nl dGIlais hhd bron expended upon thi
GAIA! II c!nstruorng it to point fifty mile:
east Of Cumberland, at which time it was uh-
able 10 earn ordinary expenses aud was without
tu'iolrnt c'cdlt to complete the work to Cum.
bcrand The c,Inplainants admit the State oil
| Maryland cinnot be made patty t) The suit,
but seek to got rid OF the difficulty OF tho courts
t"kIng jurisdiction by alleging that she has no
| Immediate and dnCc; interest in the mat,
| ter oi ihr Snli. They lcavc the court a.
| NEST whpi!y u1hln!m,d aI TO tho Interest
| Hh ch thn State o! Mar land has in tho canal.
| IL the act ni 1854 TIC Safe prtvdes for loan
| irou he:ac!f 10 tho canal company of 81 000, 600
| W.T. CT with accrued interest DOW amounts TO
So $50 eco, which ia uapsid. TLc payment Of
this loan. as provided by the &C. vas to be So
cured ty mortgage 90 the ent,ro properly until
snifc!rnt sinking fund should bo raised TO
pay 1t. 10 1915 tn, State of Maryland loaned
| respondents 81, 900 600 mcrt, whichshows con.
| c'uslVcly her i9terest. Tho next assistance at
iorGoG was 4 subscription of $4,000 to tho
cantaI stock, tho State receiving so 900 shares.
Tho seventh section Of the act OF 1885 provided
he respondents should guarantee 6 rcr ucut.
rcr snGum on $S.G0O.000, furnished by the
ate, whlc,I was accepted SD obligations
'xtc lted September 26. 1886 This being in
| suilceut 10 complete the c.nal, upon appIc,-
Il N 10 the State an aot was passed in 1888 for
f,,r \, ,n.n ,,I,. {. Nm 1
stock rf tito Company. Another act was pass
cd IN 1855 for tho substitution OF S rer cent.
bonds in lieu Of those provided Tor by tho act
of 1888. chapter 3yG The amount Of subtcrip-
tons GuLhorz d was paid to respondents by the
State and there is now Sc l43 1856 duo to tho
State. La addition 10 the IS 375 200 subscribed
to lhs capital stock of tho respondents by tho
State, sho aso pYid for $G25 coo ofstock 10 tho
ordinary RHy aud 10 therefore the holder OF S.
CUD,O00 ct tho $S,226,j9 composing tho
capital.
llavioG thus It forth the interest 10 aud lions
upon property, &c., held by tho State of Mary
and the respondents Insist that tho State is o
ncocsshrj rarty TO any procce dings. Tho man.
agcmeGt oil the stfalrs should not be !akcn out
oi the hancS TT tho respondents. 1t is *
grossly provide d IN tho mortgage under which
the bo.ids which crmplsilaots claim to told
we're lSsucd that tho cniirc control and manage.
| mcut OF the cinal should remain iu the hand,
ri c. ponicot uncss the net revenues should,
ny neeIigoLco on the part Of the company, be
| I1outc!cut 10 pay interest on bonds, 80. Ii is,
| therccre, iOdisputsbie except in ono cOntn-
reroy, that undtr tho terms Of the mortgage
the control and management Of the canal were
to be leit to the company. Ii is equally iudi:-
| pcnsablc that the State of Maryland, by virtue
| oi her liens unon all tho properly, has q vital
| IG;erest In the determination of tho question
whether lho management shal! remain With
| those whom she COW, by ylttua Ct hcr owDer~
snip OF the majority q! the stock, has the IigbI
| 10 seltci or BE IuttuSttd TO those IN whose ap
polntG1nt She Will hsvo no hand.
By the provisions OF tho mO.tgasu executed
ardtr inc acl If Assembly Of lSlt chapter 2SI
| Il ls aGrtuG between tie parties that s, lUDg %
'Gc c,uIi cCnpaty shall .mpiy w!!h their
| asIcGmrLt hy ijaii;I all Interest urcb bonds
as tLcy ~ dn@ aG' Ehai! provide III adequate
| -lnbicE tuud, &r., ir fnn finnl rcdemp.ion Ct
the tJnda tHat the cias! c0WplUy stall retain
| tGG ini0nr "uJUrt o! tic canal sud c.llct all
! icvctna', X. Il thcy lsll to comply with lhess
| cridi;iaIs ircui GGy cluse ,Xccpt deficiency
f rrsyf.rr arising ttom fiura OF busuesr,
\; TIE tru..c(a may d;nari aud nc ivo
pass >:i3n ci The nal The Respondents deny
! 'ha: tha unHcrs, with iui Knowledge O. the
m'sanEarcn!crt sni illegal apple alton If the
r,v Gu,S 0i The rnisl ny TrspDudcLtl, had been
r,qlc>i;d aud T, Ius,a i 10 like possession aud
a..uiac the liansreiftcU ii Of the canal. AID claim
| that complainant las 90 light 10 cQme iuto
court aod Ask hat the management be commit
! ted to the bands oi receiver to be appointed
by tho court. If the paricaar peIs1ns nov
filing the pcsilion ci trustees refuse 10 dis
charge their duies, the relief to be sought By
oonII lanaDt would be either that tho trustees
DO required to discharge their duties or b. d.:
placed aud others appointed. They also say il
IS u0true that the facts aS 10 tho mlSmagG-
nent ant Illegal pclVtrsiOn Of revenues OF tht
| canal were known to trustees as alleged Ia tho
bill, and they further deny that the trust
ees ever failed 10 discharge their duties
Ii the r(calvership prayed for should
be granted, tho CDtlrc management would bt
takco out Of the hands of the r; spondcnis anc
IS .umed by the court. Neither the &c. Of 1874
chapter 2Sl, nor mortgage eXeeated tteteunde
gives any lion to the boldtrs OF the bonds issuo(
thsr,undcr upon the corpus of the canal. No
does either OF them authorize 10 any evert, th
sale of the canal to pay tho bonds.
These allegations the respondents claim Il
be utterly groundless and falls, ss to Tho pass
age of sn act 10 1878 for tho purpose Of repudi
atiog or violating their duty 10 the bondholder
uoder tho act of 1914. The document who
il lengthy one. denies all the charges of mis-
management and illegal expenditures of rcvc
nu<s 1t minutcg shows the whole busilcs
transactions Guriog the courso of lis operation
anu claims no receiver should be appointed o
prayed for by CUB psiDants. A Alengthy onsWe
was also filed by Arthur ?. Gormso, p!csider
0 of the company, and Mcssts Jsmes Soap, jr
: and Lloyd Lowodes, jr. trustees undor tn
h mortgage. After the fling Of the bill the CON
plaioants asked tho oour,, 10 view Of the fa
that there wero questions of Jurisdictions raise
, by the answer, to give them lime to lxamir
the case. The court sco0rdlngls set the hear