The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1891-08-21

NCI enIllleu W ~ " any IdteI oeCNute
TINT road was never completed.
Reviewing the fight between the w.
& l.. +. and the S. P. & o., Col. suther-
land said the obstruction placed in the
way OF the former by the latter had
driven the W. & L. E. 10 Steubenyille
instead Of allowing it To be completed
to Wheeling, as was intended. 1t was
owing to this that Wheeling had but n
switch OF the W. & l. L. instead Of the
main line, and he felt, safe in saying
that the opposition Of the s. P. o.
had cost the w. & L. +. road $500, 900
and delayed il almost two years.
The colonel read number Of letters
from Judge Cochran.
Colonel Sutherland was pretty severe
upon Judge Cochran in his comments
on the letters, which referred TO mat
tiers connected with the projected S. T.
& o. railroad.
Mr.. ABBOTT MAKES A CHARGE.
Mr.. Job Abbott then spoke in re-
Spouse to Colonel Sutherland. He de-
MED that the Terminal company ever
had any connection with the S. P. & o.
scheme. Judge Cochran, he said, was
connected with both, but the two were
in no way or degree identical, nor were
they connected at any time. They
were Independent projects, having
different stockholders and different
arrangements.
Mr.. Abbott continued that Col. Suth-
erland made demand upon Col. Bissell
and the company for n part OF the
money to be paid by the company to
the Terminal Company on the ground
that he was jointly interested with
Judge Cochran, and it was for this rca-
son that Colonel Sutherland desired to
cause it to be believed that there was
connection between the bridge scheme
aud the South Penn & Ohio road. Col
onel Sutherland failed to secure any
money or any recognition, and he then
wrote letters, which Mr.. Abbott had
seen, threatening il be was not rec0g-
nized in the matter to make trouble for
them with the eastern stockholders.
Mr.. Sutherland emphatically denied
that he had ever said word on this
subject 10 Colonel Bissell.
Mr.. Hubbard said he would like to ask
Colonel Sutherland some questions on
this point. The colonel said ii the par
ties who made such charges would con-
front him he would answer all ques-
tons.
Mr.. Hubbard-He confronts You now;
that is the reason / desire to ask you
the questions.
Col. Sutherland mean the original
authors OF the charge.
Chairman McGregor asked Mr.. Abbott
several questions on the alleged con-
nection OF the bridge project and
the Ohio railroad and these were
frankly answered. He said at the time
the ordinance was passed, there were
two rival schemes, the Wheeling 4 Lake
Erie railroad and the South Pennsyl-
vania project. With the latter Judge
Cochran had been connected, but not
the other stockholders OF the Terminal
Company. The completion OF the W.
& L. Il. obviated the necessity Of carry
ing out the other plan.
MR. HuBBARD's ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Hubbard summed up for the Ter
minul company. lie read the language
of the ordinance making the loan,
which provides that the last 100000
shall be paid when "a new railroad is
built from the bridge to Bowerston."
This provision had been complied with.
The road was not an old one. Nobody
would want to write himself down as
fool and a liar by saying new railroad
had not been built. This company was
the first railroad company this COM
munity had ever dealt with which had
fulfilled every agreement and condition.
1t had done more; it had heaped up
threshold the measure in dealing with
the public. Mr.. Russell had complain
ed that this company was the pet OF the
public. II any railroad company was to
become the pet OF the public-which
Mr.. Hubbard said he did not expect to
see in his life-time-this companymight
well be that one, for it had dealt in all
respects with the public not only fairly
but generously.
Mr.. Hubbard referred to the argu-
ment made by Mr.. Russell us outdoing
himself in ingenuity. He said the rail-
road 10 Conversion was not n new rail-
road because twas built by an existing
company. lie said it was not n branch
railroad, because it was branch OF
branch railroad, and branch OF
branch railroad cannot be called a
branch railroad. He objected to this
railroad because the terms of the or
dinance specified that the new rail-
roai" should be built from the bridge
to Bowerston, and this railroad was in
stead built from Bowerston to the
bridge.
Mr.. Hubbard ridiculed this style OF
argument, and went on to say that
people were led TO expect that to-
day formal written protest from
a number Of citizens and tax
payers would be presented against the
payment OF this 100000. Who did
protest? One Citizen and taxpayer"
Mr.. I. 2. Mcneil, who it was well
known was not protesting us citizen
or as taxpnver, but as a representative
OF somebody else. Mr.. Mcneil was out
of town, and could not be asked, nor
could anybody say, whom ho did rep
resent. Possibly 1t was Colonel Suth-
crland, who having failed to cxtort
money from the Terminal company by
blackmail, rs had been shown here,
might have engaged Mr.. Mcneil to as
sist to induce this committee to get
Colonel Suthcrland's hand down into
somebody's pocket and extract the
money he wants.
Mr.. Hubbard went into clear and
exhaustive explanation OF the situation
which existed at the time the loan or
dinance was passed, and showed that
the words "a new railroad" were put in
TO exclude the Panhandle road as a
nnnnnrtinu link With tho hridnn Mr.