The Evening critic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1881-1885, 1884-10-06
THE C. & o. CANAL SUIT.
Answer Of the President aud Erus.
tees 80 the hi for IA Receiver.


The answer of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal
Company and OF Lewis O. Smith, president, to
the supplemental bill OF Daniel X. Stewart, of
England, asking for an injunction and re-
ceiver, was filed Friday In tho United states
Circuit Court for the District OF Maryland by
Mossrs. Philip Francis Thomas, Charles J. NJ.
Swlnn ana Thomas M. Lanahan, counsel. The
document nils twenty printed pages.
Tho defendants admit that bonds OF the
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company TO the
amount OF $4,000 the Issue OF which was
authorized by the Maryland act of 1881, chan.
ter 2S1, and which were intended TO be 80.
cured by tho mortgage made by the company
10 Phlneas Janney and others June 3, 1S4S,
matured IN tho year 1882, and remain unpaid,
and that other bonds OF the company TO the
amount OF S107,500, Issued and Intended to
and remain unpaid; and that sS50,O00 OF said
bonds, Issued and intended 10 be secured in
Ike manner, have matured, or will mature
during the year 1881, and that such as have
matured In SAID year remain unpaid; and
that 1898, 900 OF said bonds Will mature In the
year 1886 that said ponds which havo 80
ma mat9red, or are YET 70 mature, aggregate ST.
the same class numbered 2210, Cancelled No,
vember ii, 1859, make up the Sl,7OO,OOO au.
thorized TO be Issued by the Chesapeake &
ohio Canal Company by the Maryland act OF
1854, chapter PSI, and which were Intended
10 be secured by the mortgage made by the
company 70 Phlneas Janney aud others. The
delendants admit that the Interest coupons on
all Of said bonds have remained unpaid from
the time alleged In the original bill, but DENY
that the complainant or any other holder OF
the bonds is entitled TO the relief prayed 10
the supplemental bill, or any part thereof.
Tho defendants claim that the State OF
the Chesapeake Il Ohio Canal Company,
under the provisions OF the Maryland act OF
1891, chapter "a and Of mortgage made
under the provisions Of that act, dated on or
about April 8, 1871, lien upon the entire
property OF the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and
upon lis net tolls and revenues, which
"a
principal and accrued interest to SO ,355, 600,
that the state of Maryland subsequently,
under The act of 1895, chapter 305, subscribed
for3O,OOO shares Of tho stock OF tho company
upon It's guarantee, which was duly made az
required ny the act referred TO, to pay 20 the
State out OF It's gross receipts six per cent. per
annum on the S3iOO000O paid to It by the
State for such subscription until tho clear
profits OF the company should be more than
suilicient to discharge the sums OF money
which IL should BIO liable 10 pay annually II
the State Of Maryland, and should be aieGuate
10 dividend OF six per cent. per annum
among It's other Stockholders, and that the
said Chesapeake Ohio Canal Company had
never paid any part OF such agreed sum, and
that It's clear not profits have never been
snilGient 10 pay tho sums OF money which It
ana adequate, In addition, to dividend OF
SIX per cent per annum among Its other
stockholders.
The exception to and limitation upon the
lien OF the said bonds upon the revenues OF the
company provided for In the act of 1881 was
that the president and directors of tho COM
pany should have the privilege and authority
toapply such portions OF said revenues and
tolis as In their opinion might be necessary 10
put emo Keep the canal In good condition aud
repair for transportation, provide for tho no.
qnislte supply OF winter and pay tho salaries OF
officers and agents and the current oXpenses
OF me companyi that the president anu direct.
ofs were authorized 10 execute any deed,
mortgage or other instrument that might bo
deemed necessary or eXpedient to give the
fullest effect 10 the provisions of the act and
ItuhIg a ha Gfut
be considered as waived and deferred In favor
OF such bonds. The defendants further say
mat the existing trustees under tho mortgage
and deed OF June 3, 1S1S-Messrs. j. Bayard
H. smith, Allen Bowie DaWs, George 8. Brown
and George Hawkins Williams, OF Maryland,
and William W. Corcorap, OF the District OF
Columbla-are the true, proper and real com.
plainants In the cause, and that MIR. Stewart
has no right In himself TO prosecute tho suit,
missed.
Messrs. James Sloan, IT,, ana Lloyd LOwndes,
lrp ruStees OF tho company, liled separate
answer by the same COUNSEL, alleging sur.
siantially the same facts.