The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1877-1885, 1882-01-05
SENATOR vANcE'S REPLY
To Mr.. &. S. Martins Letter.
WASHINGTON Dec. IA. IsS
[Cor. Of the News and Observer.

. WASHINGTON Dec IA, 1881.
Mr.. Z. s. Martin, OF Wilmington
having avowed the authorship OF al
article in your paper Of the I'd inst.
attacking my course as a commissions
of the Western North Carolina Rail
road, and having denied any connec
ton as an attorney or otherwise will
that corporation, proceed as | prom
ised to answer his objections.
Stated in short, the substance o
Mr. Martins objections to the reasons
assigned by me, at the Clinton meetin.
are, that they are irrelevant, foreign
TO the subject and impertinent; that
acting in the character Of a Judge "onls
the facts that went directly to estab ilsh
non performance ofthe contract. and the
further facts which would authorize an
exten sion Of time could be legitimately
considered y and viewed in this light
mot one of my reasons is q sound and
valid objection, or ought for one mo-
ment to have been considered; = and
/ that II seemed rather to have been
discussing the question of personal pre-
| ference between two monopollcs. etc. :
Let US see If that be true. One Of
| the reasons assigned by me, aud the
chief one, was that ''thc faIlnIe 10
finish the road to Paint Rock and
Pieeon River in the time required by
the contract arose from causes for which
tie asslgnces 1CeTe responsible, and
which they could easily have surmount
ed by diligence and energy" Now
will this learned young man say thai
this reason is entirely foreign and
irrelevant to the question under con
sideratio., and is no way pertinent TO
the matters the commissioners were
called upon to adjadicate r. He has
published the material sections Of the
act; did be ever read them If So
dld he ever attempt to construe them
as a lawyeri | call his attention in
particular to The l5tn section, winch
prescrlhes the duties OF the commits
soners and Says, among other things, hat
they shall, IN case Of failure OF said
f7e fhee slime he work. Sacc86rd6g fo tic
terms of their said contract, ID give
due notice thereof to the Governor of
said State, and to the United States
Trust Company, of New York. Now
is the duty herein imposed upon the
I'ui tSSlohtib ~ diitSboiS
merely 2 1t was and is my opinion
that it is mandatory beyond doubt.
[ cannot believe that the Legislature
either intended to give or did in fact
give, TO the three men named as com
missioners the power to defeat its ex-
pressed will at their discretion; that
the Legislature did not intend to per
nit a failure of SO important a contract
to pass unnoticed or otherwise, as
these three men might see proper.
Section Is provides that in case the
said grantees or their assigns shall fail
to carry out and perform their said
contract, all the grants hereby intend
ed to be made to them shall become
and be null and void Not if the
commissioners shall so please, but if
the grantees shall fail. Taking these
two sections together, | conceive the
meaning of the law plainly to be that
if the grantees fail to perform, the
commissioners shall give notice Ct that
failure to the Governor and the Trust
Company in any and all cases. except
one. That exception is to be found IN
section %, and proves the truth Of my
position, according to a we'll known
rule o. legal construction. That sec
ton reads THAT should the said gran
tees or their assigns be hindered or |
delayed by any cause for which they
are In no wise responsible, then the
commissioners shall allow reasonable |
extension of time for the completion of !
said lines ofroad." Now, ii is pos-:efe
that nv view of the lay - hefe SCI
ont | venture the I
opinion that every lawyer IN North
Carolina, except my critic, would say
that nv reason assigned ID the fourth /
paragraph was pertinent to the subject
under discussion by the commissioners,
aud | would not depair, if it were
worth the effort, Of convincing him on |
an d5rjsdrf.
Let US inquire if | was right in as
su,niny that the failure of the assignees |
was ta cir own fault The fact that they
failed to reach Paint Rock and Pigeon |
River by the lst Of July, 1881, is ad-
mitted, [ suppose; it was found offici-
ally by the commissioners and never /
denied, that up to the date of the find
ing the work bad act been prosecuted |
with diligence and energy as re-
ouired by section ). It Is also fact |
that the assignees failed to keep at
work on the Dlcktown line a fo-ce
sufficient to flush it to Pigeon River
by the time the branch was finished to
Paint Rock. as is required by section
21
Here are thee separate and distinct
failures to perform the contract, each |
one sufficient in law 10 work a forfeiture |
unless saved by section % Was the
contract SO savedl Were the assignee
.hinderea or delayed by causes for
which they were in no wise fespon-
sible." aud were these hindrances and |
DELAYS the cause Of those failures At /
the risk Of repeating much that has
already been published, [ shall aliude
briefly to the facts which forced me to
the conclusion that they were rsspon-
sible for the failures.
In their application for an extension
Of time the asslgnees relied chiefly upon
two points: First, that the last winter,
being one of unusual severity, was un-
favorable to outdoor labor; and, sec
ondly. that the State failed to furnish
them with the full number Of 300 con-
victs promised them by the contract.
The reply to the first point is obvious
though the winter was severe, no finer