Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-03-15
TO SELL THE VALLEY.
The Income Bondholders of the Road
Arguing Their Appeal.
W. WEBER SUES FOR A LEASE.
A True Bill Against Messrs. Young and
HOerr for Embezzlement.
THE GRIND AND HUN OF THE COURTS

The argument in the appeal of the income
bondholders of the Allegheny Valley Rail-
road for the sale of that road was taken up
before Judge Acheson in the United States
District Court yesterday afternoon.
Messrs. George Shiras, Jr., D. T. Watson
and John G. johnson, of Philadelphia
represented the income bondholders; Dep
uty Attorney General Sanderson, represent
ing the Commonwealth; Samuel G. Thomp-
son, Esq, b. o. Shields, Esq, W. j. How-
ard, Esq, and Samuel Dickson, Esq. all of
Philadelphia, representing the trustees of the
Low Grade $4,000 900 mortgage; Judge j. A.
Logan, of Philadelphia, and John H. Hampton.
representing the Pennsylvania Railroad, were
present.
Mr. Dickson opened the argument. and con-
sumed nearly two hours the major portion OF
which was too technical to be distinctly under
stood except by those present and directly in
terested in the case. He argued that cred
itors by prior mortgage ask that the sale shall
not take place and their rights conhscated.
CANNOT SACRIFICE THE INTEREST.
They asked the Court to regard the right of a
creditor to maintain his debt until the time set
for it natures, which in this case happens to be
in 1910 Mr.. Dickson held that there was no
clause in the mortgage which gives the right to
sacrifice the interest of the bond holders. The
bond holders secured the bonds under the be-
lief that they were protected by mortgage by
the State, and the question before the Court
is, will ii declare the bonds to be good. and II
not will they be justified in bringing suit
against the Pennsylvania Railroad to recover?
John G. Johnson, ESQ.,, answered Mr. DICK
SON and stated that the mortgage made in 1874
was without warrant in law. The London bond
holders bought their bonds in 1872 when there
was no main stem or Low Grade division, and
it was afterward mortgaged. There is no au-
thority in the State of Pennsylvania that would
give them double security two years after they
had bought their bonds.
SALE SURE AS FATE.
Mr.. johnson did not pretend that the bonds
were no good. but they must come in with the
rest of the creditors. The sale was as inevitable
as fate, and in asking the Chancellor to make
a sale, the Chancellor takes into consideration
not only the rights of a select few but of every
body. They had il that this property is de-
preclating in value and going into debt at the
rate of nearly Sl.U00, 900 year. 1t mattered not
to them what the equities were between the
bondholders and the Pennsylvania Railroad
Company. What they want was that the
Chancellor should sell as soon as he sees the
rights demand 1t. They were not proceeding
against the bondholders, but merely protecting
their own rights. 1t is conceded that the
property is depreciating in value every day, and
utter ruin is inevitable and they wanted sale
now aS the other side admit that now is the
best time to sell. The trouble with the London
bondholders is that they got bond from the
Pennsylvania Railroad. they get 500 for every
SS5 and they don't want to lose that.
John H. Hampton. Esq, filed the answer for
the Allegheny Valley Railroad, and stated that
the road thought they should take no interest
in the case as the road was hopelessly in
solvent.