Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-01-29

ERS OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES 9AMBRILL SAYS
THE CANAL HAS NO NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.. HAM
BLEToN AND DAVIS WANT AN IMMEDIATE SALE.
This morning Henry C. Winship Of West
Washington and Victor Cushwa filed their
bonds and oaths Of office as receivers in the
case Of G.. s. Brown ct al. against the Chesa-
peake and Ohio canal company ct al. The
bonds are for $4,000 each, conditioned on the
faithful performance of their duties, Benjamin
R. Mayfield and s. Thomas Brown. the sureties
of Mr.. Winship, and Thomas NJ. Gale of Mr..
Cushwa.
THEY WANT TO BE REPRESENTED.
There was also filed today by Gen. Bradley T.
Johnson a petition of G. 8. Brown, C. n Mat
thews ct al, trustees under the mortgage of
1S48 setting forth that they are defendants in
the cause; that they represent 81 1896, 500 prin-
cipal of bonds and twenty-five years interest,
making total of s4,250.OOO, secured by
mortgage on the tolls and revenues prior
to all other liens except that of the holders of
the bonds Of 1873, whose whole debt amounts
to $500 They state that the receivers are
satisfactory to them, but thely hold the largest
interest in the preservation Of the canal or in
its successful operation-S4, $500 against
$500 They ask that John S. Gettings and
Bradley I. johnson be appointed coreceivers
Will MessTs. NlnsHlp anu CusnWa, anu II NOT
both that one OF them be appointed.
AN IMMEDIATE SALE ASKED.
There was also filed the answers of John A.
Hambleton Co. of Baltimore and Of H. G.
Davis Bro and the Davis national bank Of
Piedmont, VIVA. They admit that the freshet
of 1889 has had the effect to render the canal
incapable OF use as a water way, admit the
insolvency of the canal company, but
deny that in its present condition the franchises
under the mortgage of 1873 are inadequate
security for the preferred or unpaid interest on
the bonds, and state that if sold it will realize
more than the principal and unpaid interest
They deny that there is necessity to put it in
order for sale, and that the true interests of
| the bond holders require the sale without the
expenditure of any more money for repairs or
restoration, and they ask a sale.
THE CANAL WITHOUT REVENUE.
The affidavit Of Stephen Gambrill, president
of the canal company, is also filed. He says
'that all moneys received by the company for
wharfage are only received when the canal is
In operation and shipping coal. and that there
fore the canal has not received any money from
this source since the destruction of the
canal in May, 1889; that the only
water rents paid since said destruction
are paid by the millers way water on the
Georgetown level and that Immediately after
the freshets Of 1889 all the water rents paid by
them We're set off and applied to the restora-
ton of that part of the canal out of which they
issue and will not be payable to the company
for about the period of three years from May,
| 1889; that with the exception of the
rent paid by the Washington gas light
company all the rents paid for the
use of lands are paid for property for store and
other business purposes along the line of the
canal, which lands are only of value to the
lessees and can only be paid for by them when
the canal is in operation, and that therefore no
| money has been received from these notes
since said freshets of May, 1889, nor will any
be paid again while the canal is in its present
condition; that the next rent due from the
Washington gaslight company will be payable
in July, 1890"
IN THE MARYLAND LEGISLATURE.
The Maryland senate yesterday adopted by q
vote Of 16 to 6 the resolution instructing the
attorney general to intervene and resist the
suit for a receiver for the Chesapeake and Ohio
canal. There was an interesting discussion
over the resolution before its passage. Mr..
Pearre opposed it strongly. He held that the
canal could be restored for Sl5O,OOO.
Senator Poe, arguing for the resolution, said:
'.If this receiver is appointed he may retain
possession of the canal for long time, issue
| receivers's certificates and pile up a debt of
100000 or $500, 900 on the canal-a wasteful
expenditure" Mr.. Stake said that to delay
the appointment Of this receiver was to pro-
tract the restoration of the canal. The only
object in sending the attorney general to in
tervene in this suit is to delay and protract it