Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1881-01-07
TIE CANAL CASE.

TIE CANAL CASE.
In another column will be found the
opinion of Judges Bond and Morris of the
United States Circuit Court, refusing the
application for a receiyership in the case of
Daniel X. Stewart VS.. the Chesapeake and
Ohio Canal Company.
Ii is an elaborate and able review of the
whole case, and at the same time decidedly
fiattering vindication of the management Of
the canal under the efficient administration
of President German, and must be exceed
ingly gratifying TO himself and numerous
friends throughout the State.
This case has occupied much of public
interest throughout the State ever since its
Inauguration and has involved an immense
amount of labor in its preparation as well
as vast research and able argument of the
most distinguished counsel upon the final
hearing.
A careful reading of the opinion will lead
to the conclusion that the case has been de-
cided strictly upon its merits, so far as the
purpose of the suit is concerned.
The main points upon which the com
plainants relied, namely, that of gross mis-
management and q perversion of the reve-
nues of the canal, the Court have said in
the plainest terms that there is no evidence
to sustain the allegation, that there is fail
IRE of proof.
In referring TO that portion OF the bill
where it is alleged that the canal has been
made political machine" and run in the
interest of certain party measures and in
diyiduals to the serious detriment of its
bondholders, the Court say that if such ex-
isted, that the Court cannot remedy, shat
it existed at the time complainant purchased
his bonds and has always been an element
in the estimate of their value" and then
goes on to say what we have already stated
in effect, 1--WE do not find the allegation sup
ported by the proof"
Whilst the Court holds the opinion that
the charge that the issue of the repair bonds
in 1878 was not necessary, and disposes of il
by showing that the same counsel employed
by complainant in the prosecution of this
suit, advocated before the Legislature an act
of the issue Of these bonds, it fully sustans
the management in the purchase of the
wharf property at Cumberland, the build
ing of the outlet lock at Georgetown, and
the construction of a telephone along the
line "as necessary acts for the canal to main
tain itself against competition which threat
ened its existence" and sustains the defense
that the failure TO pay the interest on the
bonds was due to financial depressions,
strikes, freshets and competition with other
lines causes plainly beyond
the control of the management As regards
the buildings of he telephone line, concern
ing which SO much has been said and
written as against the policy of the.step, the
Court hold the opinion that it "rcsults in Q
considerable adug Of annual expense"
After careful consideration of all thu
facts developed during the trial of the caus'
the Court have arrived at the conclusion
that Their laes uot exist sufficient cause f.
q o judicial power to place iht
work IN thc hands OF a receiver, and w
think that al persons who view the entir
case from an unprecedented standpoint car
hardly fail TO see the wisdom Of the decision
From the very ineipiency OF tho case W
have entertained the idea that the applica
ton for receivership upon such films
allegation as that OF political corruption
and mismanagement would be refused, 70
it was a prominent feature that pending tn
examination ofthe principal witnesses for tn
complainant, in which the widest laiitud
was extended, there was no evidence of an
acts of political corruption, but that on tn
contrary was TO the effect that the canal wa
better equipped and in better condition TO d
business than at any period since its con
struction. We feel glad and relieved tba
the case has been concluded, and in sue
away as leads us to indulge the idea that
can hardly fail 10 meet with general salts
faction, whilst il Is proud compliment t
the energy, illness, integrity and executiv
ability II it. able president.