Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-02-10
TERMINAL CHARTER.
THE ArroRNxY-aEsgRAL HEARS AR
euxgNr CONCERNING 1T.
Whether He will Proceed By ouo Warran'o
Not 10 DO Decided for Two
Weeks.

rcnfo proceedings Cor the forfeiture oil the
charter OF the Richmond and West Point
Terminal Railway and Warehouse Company
should BEGIN OF . l.. NJ. Accordingly coun'
sci not present we're notified and st tbe ap-
Aolp,ed hour the gentlemen interested IN the
nssf az attorneys or otherwise assembled "a
Mr.. AyerS's Office, on the third floor OF The
Capitol building. The bearing was private.
No representatives Of the press were ~ the
room. In addition 70 Nr. Ayers and the
counsel there were present General 1. NJ;
Logan, vice. president OF the Richmond ana
Danville: Colonel A. :. Buiord, }. X. scout,
n ~ CHRISTIAN. Hon. Henry Heaton, OF
Ioudoun: General William II. Pavne' OF
Fauquier; Barbour Thompson, Of Aiexan-
drla, and W. II. Qusrlcs.
COUNSEL IN Tue CASE.
I'll. conn4N nrcsept were Mr.. Samuel
Dsrtson. of Philadelphia, representing those
who ask that the Attorney-Generals nail pro-
coed against the Terminal; Judge Hoadley.
of New York, Ex-Governor OF OHIO; Judge
Waller X. STAPLES and Colonel w. w. Cor
don for the Terminal Company. Mr.. NJ:
D.costA. OF New York. who i associated
with MIR. Dickson. was unayoidably ABSENT
having other important legal engagements,
but he sent D1ei, which was read by MS
associate.
I.
the petition was presented about three weeks
ago, aud rested his case 40 that ne MADE no
opening speech yesterday.
THE DEFENCE.
The discussion was opened on behalf OK
the respondents Ohe Terminal Company by
Governor Hoadley, who was followed by
Colonel W. W. Gordon aud Judge Waller
n. STAPLES. In addition 10 this very ela6o-
rate brief WINS filed or behalf OF Governor
Ho,dley and his associates.
The counsel for the Terminal Company In
sl,ted that every step taken by the company
and every dollars worth OF stock acquired
by II was in strict conformity with acts and
ainendaiory acts passed Nv the Legislature OF
Virginia, and this proposition they made
good by abundant citations OF legislative
enactmeDts.
One OF the acts referred TO Is that OF Feb
ruary n. 1882, the eighth section OF which
conferred upon the company the smplest and
fullest powers. The powers thus originally
granted by law 10 the Terminal Company
were confirmed and sanctioned by the act OF
March 90. 1887. This act was passed after
all the transactions which are now COM
planned OF had been completed and perfected.
None OF these were secret transactions; they
were published TO the world, were well
known to the people aud TO the Legislature.
II, therefore. there was anything ia tue pur-
chase or acquisition OF the stock OF the Ter
minal Company The General Assembly bad
deliberately sanctioned and confirmed II.
They declared that the whole question was,
therefore, reduced TO the single proposition
whether these enaclmenls were Invalid be-
cause they were not in conformity with the
constitutional provision which requires that
the objects OF every statute shall be stated
in the title. IL was not pretended, nor could
il DE shown, that the company had ever eX-
ceeded ITS chartered rights or violated the In
tentiOn OF tue General Assembly OF NIr-
ginia "a contained In the various statutes on
the subject. The whole question, therefore,
was reduced to the narrow technical point
whether the body Of the act coniormcd TO
the title. Upon this subject they cited nu-
merous authorities snd cases decided by the
highest courts OF Virginia and elsewhere
which sustain their validity. Counsel said
this was n very curious and anomalous pro- !
ceedng. IL was set on foot by unknown
parties, but believed 10 be in the interest OF
q rival railroad company OF the State repre-
scented by counsel from distant cities, who
tell Us what Is necessary TO the honor and !
dignity of Virginia.
The Legislature OF Virginia had been IN |
session during the last winter; 1t had
directed no proceeding against the Terminal |
conduct; no citizen OF Virginia, so far as
was known, bad made any such complaint, |
and now an effort Is made to invoke the |
Attorney General OF Virginia to make the |
State party 10 a controversy between two
rival railroad companies. The Attorney
General had absolute discretion IN the mat
Ter and that discretion ought not TO be used |
10 embark The State i'm any such controversy.
Let the parties, whoever they are. II was
said, 20 before the courts or before the
Legislature.
II was a moustrous proposition that after
the Legislature OF Virginia had granted this
charter and had passed these laws comforting
rights on citizens OF this and other States
that an effort should now be made pretend.
eddy on behalf OF the State TO destroy these
rights and TO take away this charter OF the
Terminal Company, because the Legislature
had not affixed q proper title 10 its statutes.
FOR THE INFoRMANTs.
Mr.. Dickson, for the eomplsinants or in-
formants, concluded the argument In a
speech OF about an hour aud half lie also
read the brief OF bis associate, which dis
cusses the matter fully and enters largely
into legal technicalties.
This argument was on tho hne OF the petit
ton or brief first submitted, the main points
of which were published in the Dispatch at
the time.
THE DECISION.
The papers were submitted. and Mr..
Ayers took the mstter under consideration,
saying that be would give the subject careful
thought and render his decision as soon as
practicable. AS the documents submitted
for his perusal are quite vOluminous. and
the questions involved important ones, the
Attorney General Will hardly be able TO reach
mis- conclusions under two weeks. IL that
soon.
The real question this officer has 10 decide
Is whether the facts brought 10 his attention
are sufficient to warrant him IN initiating
legal proceedings and his decision In no
wise Affects the merits OF the casa. IL be de-
cIines 10 take the steps which he Is asked TO,
then the complainants, who as yet are with
out name. so far as the record goes, can give
bond 10 indemnify tue state against any loss
or expense, present their grievance 10 the
Attorney.General,a and formally petition blm
10 Gle In court the petition that has been
presented 20 him. IL be still thinks he Is not
TO proceed the parties feeling
themselves aggrieyed can sue in their own
name aud for their benefit and protection.
wHo ARE TUE oosPLAISANrs?
This Is question that has been very gene
rally asked on all hands since the case first
sprung up. and the answer has ever been
81 the Norfolk and Western" General Lo-
gan. in speaking OF the project yesterday,
taid there is no concealnent OF the fact that
the Norfolk and Western is backing the
scheme and asking the State TO come 10 their
rescue in the fight between them and the
Richmond aud Danvic.
The original paper presented TO Mr.. Ayers
alleges that the Terminal Company has eX-
cseded its RIG hts under the Constitution, and
that 10 acquiring competing lines Of railway
In the South II has gone contrary 10 public ,
policy, and for this aud other reasons has
sitiatsd It's e9arter.
TERMINAL STOCK.
In this connection the following. taken from !
lbe financial column OF the New York Sun
Of Yesterday, may prove interesting reading:
The feature Of to.dsy's dealings upon the
Stock Exchange was q moderate reaction
extending through nearly the entire list. ;
The notable exceptions were Richmond Ter !
mtnal common, Cincinnati. Indianapolis, st. !
Louis and Chicago, and C., c., c. and In .
dianspolis. Ali three closed materially !