Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1881-10-03
The Lease of the Western and At
Iantic Railroad.
Atlantic C0nstitutioll.

The Lease Of the Western and At
Iantic Railroad.
AtIanta Constitution.
The Legislature, after an unusually long
| session, has adjourned, having done some
wise things and some that were unwise.
| Among the latter we are obliged to class
| the resolutions instructing the Attorney
/ General in case he is not satisned ABOUT
| certain points referred to him, to commence
/ suit for the forfeiture of the lease OF the
| Western and Atlantic Railroad.
| II there Is any one thing upon which the
neople of Georgia are practically unit II Is
/ their approval of TIE lease of the state
/ Road. The company took it when 1t was
| very much run down and IN dangerous
| condition-when the Bullock admlnlstra-
ton was calling for half million OF collars
as an appropriation TO repair II. Inc 80
| were men OF high character, and they nave
| complied with the laws of the lease In every
/ nsrticular. We understand there has never
| been an instance in nearly eleven years, when
| thew hsve fallen one single day behind the
| payment of the monthly rental When que
| They ALWAYS pay on the last day OF the
| month unless It is Sunday, and then they
| nav on the Saturday before. They have
mt their earnings into the improvement OF
| the road. till experienced railroad men say
| n Is worth from half million TO million
| dollars more than when the lessees took
r. We understand the actual cost OF
these improvements paid for out OF
the incomes Of the company have
| been between five and seven hundred thou
sand dollars. There is no provision in the
lease act that gives the company snything
for betterments, and still they have gone
| forward and taken up old iron rails and put
| down new steel rails, and torn out old wood
en- bridges and put in new iron bridges, and
In every particular they have brought up
| the road from a condition where it could
scarcely be operated to first class For the
first three or four years the company paid
| not dollar of dividends to stockholders
bat put everything into the improvement Of
| the road They then issued a batch of
| income bonds, and they have since
| been paving the interest and part of the
bonds out of the net earnings made by the
company. Their income is now a very
handsome one. But the present Legislature
having authorized Colonel Cole to build a
railroad by the side OF the Western and At
| lantic Railroad, 1t will, of course, take of q
large part of the profits of the lessees for
| the next few years, and no reasonable man
| can calculate on extravagant incomes with
this competition. 1t follows, therefore, that
| when the incomes are averaged through the
| twenty wears the net amount will be com
paratively small in view of the heavy re-
| spOnsibilities the lessees took and the great
| efforts they have made. and the good faith
with which they have kept their contract.
Ia this state Of the case resolutions were
| introduced into the two Houses, providing
for the appointment Of committee to in
vestigate two questions-one the present
ownership Of the shares, and the other
whether the company had been guilty of
| discrimination as against any railroad com
panies or individuals. The current report
about the streets at the time was, that the
| lobby had done all 10 their power to insti-
| gate such a proceeding In the hopes of re-
| eeiving compensation for defending the
/ lease, but we understand the President of the
road announced from the commencement
/ that he would employ no one to defend a
measure so well settled and so generally
satisfactory to the people. 1t was also re-
| ported by Madam Rumor that certain able
attorneys 10 the State were competent to do
more business than they have st present,
and that they have no objection to heavy
suit In court. TO determine the validity of
the State Road lease, as they would expect
to be retained, or in some way TO get in as
counsel for the State; aud after FIVE or ten
wears litigation, after the case has probably
| been to the Supreme Court Of the United
| States, to bring in bills for five or ten thou
sand dollars each for services rendered to
the people. to be paid out Of the peoples
treasury. We psid no attention to either
report, surprising really that the iuvestiga-
l ZION auOuuI6u 10 uOkulDRs dS we utQ HOY
presume the representatives OF the people
would be guilty OF fault or desire to mis-
/ represent the wishes Of their constituents
by any attempt to disturb the lessees of the
| State Road; or by an attempt to get up
long and expensive litigation between the
people of the State, who are satisfied with
| the lease, and the lessees Of the road who
have dealt in perfect good faith with the
people.
But we find we were mistaken In this cal
culation. The committee, after a long in
Vestigation, and after publishing a consid-
| cradle volume of testimony at the expense
of the State, finally agreed on a unanimous
report, referring two questions to the At
| torney General-one as to the suficiencY Of
the bond given by the lessees. And we re-
mark lust here, we are unable to find in the
resolution appointing a committee any in
structions to them to investigate that ques-
ton. The other to inquire whether there
have been transfers OF shares to persons out
side Of the State, putting majority Of the
stock out Of the State. We believe it is rot
| commended by any one that a majority of
those who appear on the books of the
| company to be owners Of the shares re-
/ side out of the State. But the commit
| tee raised the question whether they are
| all bona tide owners or whether they may
not represent parties outside Of the State;
| In the event the Attorney General is not
/ 6AItfuEu Oh Tue ldsL DEODOhltlOu ne las 10
commence proceedings for the forfeiture OF
the lease. II he is not satisfied about the
| bond he has TO give sixty days within which
| to give a new bond or to make the new one
| good, or he is to commence proceedings to
| forfeit the lease. Now, we can see no earthly
use in all this ado unless 1t be In the inter-
| est Of attorneys. The people certainly have
no interest in getting up such litigation.
| The,bond OF the lessees requires two things
| first, the prompt payment of the rental each
| month; second, that the road be returned
| in SIS good condition as the lesseees found 1t.
| As already stated, for nearly eleven years
the lessees have paid promptly the monthly
rental on the day it was due, while they had
under the law twenty days after the end of
the month within which to pay 1t. The
| character of those who control the company
| for financial promptness is sufficient guar
4 antee that there will never be any doubt
about the prompt payment Of the rental.
| And there is certainly no use for bond at
all on the other proposition, for as the road
is now worth more than a half a million Of
dollars iu excess Of its value when the lease
was made, and the business is so much lar
| ger than it was ten years ago, 1t would be
! impossible for the lessees to transact the
business OF the road, if they were to let It
ruu down as low as it was when they got 1t.
| We have, therefore, in the present condition
| of the road, and the necessity that compels
| them to keep it In better order than they
| got II, an ample guarantee that It
will be returned as good as when
received. Then why should we go to law
at this stage with the lessees on the
| question Of the bond or on the question of
the ownership Of the shares? There was a
provision In the lease act that the company
who were to become lessees should a ma
| iority of them be citizens of Georgia. This
| was to prevent the road from falling into the
hands Of company Of Northern specula-
tors who might be irresponsible. But there
| is no provision In the lease act that requires
| the original lessees to continue to own their
shares or to continue to keep majority of
| their shares In the State. Nor Is there any
provision in case there is a majority Of one
| in the State, that II that one were to sell his
share to somebody out of the State this
would forfeit the interest Of the rest OF the
shareholders. l. would simply be absurd
The law makes provision in case OF the
death of one Of the lessees, in certain con-
tiugencies, that the Ordinary may order bis
share sold, and there is nothing that pre-
vents a citizen of another State from buying
It. This might turn the scale and put ma
jority of the stockholders outside of the
State. Would anybody contend that the
lease was forfeited on that account. or that
the public care one way or the other wheth-