The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-06-25


and the same receivers were APP
pointed In the meantime suit had
been instituted in the district court of
Anderson county in behalf of certain
bondholders and stockholders asking
for the appointment of receiver and
claiming the want OF jurisdiction in
our court here.
The first day of April was appointed
to hear the matter and on that day a
number of attorneys, besides myself,
went to Palestine to oppose this ap
pointment. The result of this suit you
know. On that day also the regular
annual meeting of the stockholders
and directors Of the International and
Great Northern were to be held, but
Mr.. Harrison, the assistant attorney
general, appeared at Palestine and had
injunction served on the directors and
proposed directors, restraining them
or control of International and Great
Northern.
This suit was filed and is now pend
ing in Austin and is enti led 1.-The
State VS.. the Missouri, Kansas and
Ttxas Railway Company, Interna-
tioual and Great Northern Railroad
Company ct al y and the nature of it
the record there will show.
AS stated above, Jay Gould got
judgment on his debt on March ii,
1889. Will also state here that in Nav,
1899, the trustees for the first mort
gage bond holders also filed their suit
in our court, and prayed for the APP
pointment of receivers, which prayer
was granted.
Afterwards, at the September. 1899,
term OF the court, the state, through
the attorney general, interviewed in
the suits of the bondholders, claiming
that the bonds were null and void.
The Missouri, Kansas and Texas rail
way company also interviewed in the
suit OF the second mortgage bond
holders at the same term. After
various Intellectual efforts on the part
of the bondholders to obtain a trial of
the cases (the continuance at the last
term being given on account of
sore throat of one of eight
attorneys representing one of the in
tervenors) the bondholders at the last
september term, upon the case being
continued as above, dismissed their
causes of action and claimed dis
missal of the whole case, which the
court allowed. and from this the attor
ney general presented an appeal to the
supreme court, where his appeal is
now pending.
l can give you no reason for the
original appointment of receivers but
always thought that it was a high
handed judicial outrage, collusively
parpetrated to afford places, spoils and
patronage, and believe an investiga-
ton will show this. The reason of the
retention of the receivers is as stated
above, from which you can draw your
conclusions. There are many well
authenticated rumors about this whole
matter, and the ventilation of which
will tend to purity the administration
of justice and the truth of which an
investigation will develop.
The allowances, in my opinion, have
been unreasonable, such as are known
and made public, and in some cases
we only know of them by accident, as
the orders making them have been
withheld from the records and sup
pressed. The record only shows that
Mr.. Finley was allowed $4,000 on ac-
count, and yet it is understood that
$4,000 was allowed and paid. The
record also only shows that the ex
master in chancery and present re-
ceiver, 7. M. Campbell, was allowed
500 per month, and yet he
was paid $4,000 extra compensation
for his first years service on an order,
which was filed and Immediately with
drawn, and has not yet been put in
the record, though, as l understand, ii
was made a year or more ago.
About the first OF January of this
year, Mr.. John Eddy, one of the re-
ceivers, died. After his death, know
ing the inclination of the court to pro-
vide for his friends, and fearing that
he would make the appointment OF
another receiver. which was wholly
unnecessary, and would create addi-
tional burden, we went to the Judge and
requested him to make no appoint
ment until the parties interested in
the property could be heard from.
The court thereupon gave us written
order, appointing Saturday, January
"a, at 10 o'clock a. M, as the time and
the court house at Tyler as the place
to hear the parties at interest as to the
appointment of another receiver. We
appeared at the time and place ap.
pointed, having in our possession a
protest or objection from Mr.. Gould,
The International and Great North
ern Railroad company, the trustees OF
the first mortgage, the trustees of the
second mortgage, and the Missouri,
Kansas and Texas Railway company
all opposed the appointment of an
other receiver, and will here say that
the above, who objected, represented
every particle of interest in the prop
erty, both stock and bonds, and all the
parties to the litigation. and it GER
tainly appeared to us that their re-
quest ought to have been granted.
Judge McCord, however, did not
appear as he had ordered, out went
off and held secret meetings with the
applicants for the petition of receiver
and other friends. and in such secret
meetings decided upon his course and
appointed Mr. Campbell. the then
master in chancery, co-receiver with
Col. Bonner, never at any time giving
us, or any OF the parties at interest,
an opportunity to be heard. Before
he had made the appointment, how
ever, we had hunted him up and filed
with him the protest and objections Of
| tho ahnua nartias