Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-09-15
THE N. K. AND 7. SUIT.
How Texans Abroad Regard the Ac-
ton of the Attorney General.
They Claim the Good Name of the Lone Star
State and Its People are Injured and
No One Benefited.
New YoRk. Sept. 3. 1870.

New YORK, Sept. =. 1880.
To the Gazette.
The announcement in the morning pa
pers of this city that the attorney gener-
al of the state of Texas had instituted
suit against the Missouri, Kansas Il Tex
as railway company to forfeit its charter +,
was a surprise to the citizens of Texas
temporarily sojourning in this city, either
on business or pleasure. There are sixty
or seventy Texans in the city with whom
the writer is personally acquainted. They
are distributed over the state from Red
river to San Antonio, and from Marshall
TO FL Paso. During the day and up to
ten O'Clock p. IN. forty-three of them
were interviewed upon the subject. and
with one accord they pronounced the ac-
ton of the attorney-general unnecessary,
unwise, impolitic and mischievous. Many
of them were advocates of Hogg's nomi-
nation as a candidate for governor. Ma
nv of them favored the adoption of the
commission amendment to the constitu-
ton, but none of them approved or at
tempted to justify or excuse this unwar-
ranted and unnecessary assault upon the
corporate existence of this company. All
of them in one way and another
were interested in the development
of Texas, and all had felt
during the day the evil influence of
Hogg 8 assault upon this company which
has struggled SO manfuliy and against
such adverse circumstances and condi-
tions to preserve its existence, to i'm
prove its condition and to advance and
promote the interests of Texas. The
state has had no better friend than the re-
organization committee of this company,
who still represent the stock and bond
holders of the corporation, and who are
struggling against stringent money
market and in season of great financial
unrest and depression to rehabilitate the
company, infuse it with new life and
place it IN position to serve its patrons
acceptably. 1t should not be forgotten
that the Missouri, Kansas and Texas of
to-day is not, except in name only, the
same company that committed the
errors, if they have been committed, of
which Mr. Hogg complains, and for
which he seeks to deprive it of its cor
porate existence. The sins of omission
and commission of which he complains,
if committed at all, were under another
and different management, which sue
ceeded in wrecking the company and re-
ducing it to the necessity of appealing to
the courts of the country for protection.
This was done during Mr.. Hogg's term of
office as attorneys without any
protest from him, and presumably
with his knowledge and consent.
Subsequent to the road going into the
hands of receiver, the reorganization
committee have induced capitalists to
.
new money into the company for the pur-
pose of repairing the physical condition
of the road, and the payment of its past
due obligations. Pending this effort,
and at time when 1t was nearing COM
pietion, comes the state of Texas, by Its
attorney and puts a quietus
upon the whole proceedings by suit for
the forfeiture of its franchises. Mr.. Ed
itor, why is this? Whom does the attor-
nsy-geueral serve by this action? What
interest that is inimical to the Missouri,
Kansas and Texas on Wall street or else
where Is to be benefited by this proceed
ing? What wizards hand, If any, is
directing this course? These inquiries
are suggested by the obvious fact that
the state of Texas, whose good name is
used as party plaintiff to these proceed
ings, derives no benefit, direct or indi-
rect, immediate or remote, from the
successful termination of this suit in its
favor. Granted that Mr.. Hogg is sue
cessful in his suit, and that the
court of last resort issues its mandate re-
voklng the charter of the company, what
then? To whom will the road and its
equipments belong? Certainly not to
the state of Texas. 1t will have derived
no benefit from the proceedings. The
road and all that appertains to it will
still be the property of the stock
holders, subject to the lien of
the bondholders. The officers and
managers would hold it as trustees
for the owners. The road could not sue
or be sued. The owner of q yearling
killed by passing train would be COM
PEELED to make every stockholder party
defendant to q suit for damages. 1t
could not be proceeded against in its cor
porate capacity because that had been
taken away. Chaos would follow and
confusion reign supreme. One looks in
vain for any benefit to follow from the
action of the attorney-general, and can
see only loss, trouble and expense to the |
owners of the road. That Texas suffers |
in its good name and reputation is man |
ifest The state is judged by the action |
recently been chosen by the dominant |
party for the highest place in their gift, |
and the question forces itself with q resist |
less power upon the mind of every one that |
has the interest of the state at heart and |
is not blinded by prejudice and hate: is |
the encouragement a party TO some |
stock jobbing scheme, and Is the great |
state of Texas to be used as an instru- |
ment for the furtherance of this scheme? |
If there was any provision of the law of |
Texas limiting the amount at which rail- |
roads can be bonded per mile, regardless |
of cost, or if the forfeiture of the charter |
of railway company conferred upon |
the state any power to take pos
session and operate the road for the |
benefit of the stockholders or the state, |
or in the interest of the public, one |
might look with some completeness upon |
this action of the attorney general. |
But in the absence of any such provision, |
and In view of the fact that the owners |
of the property are harrassed and an
moved ana put to great trouble and ex- |
pense, and that the good name of the |
state and its people are injured, and no |
one benefited, the reason for this |