Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-10-01

| be successfully controverted.
| For nearly two years this Injunction has
| stood without an answer except through
| the public prints by slurs on the attorney
| generals department while was in charge
| of it. and since by aSpersionS on myself as
| an official. There have been no legal efforts
| TO have the matter settled in court by the
complaining parties until to-day: and now
| they only ask the injunction be modified y
| If there is any virtue in our constitution or
strength in our statutes. have not the least
DOUBT but that the injunction. on final
trial. Will be perpetuated as it ought to be-
4. The fourth and last cases involving
that company's affairs in which partici-
pated We're the ones at Tyler of the Farm
ers' loan and trust company and J. ). Ken
| nedy ct al. against the International and
Great Northern. The plaintiffs in those
cases Were the alleged creditors or bond
holders of the company. They sought 10
establish their claims. amounting to over
fifteen millions OF dollars in bonds. and to
have the property sold to satisfy their de-
Inands.
interviewed IN these actions on the 9th of
September, 1889, before Judge ALcCord
six months after the famous receivership
had been established over the property of
that company. had in my possession the
record and other proof to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that at least $4,000 600
of those bonds We're and are fictitious. that
they were issued without consideration for
speculative purposes. and not for either
money. property or labor received by the
company: but in express violation of the
constitution and statutes of our state The
possession of these facts | had ACQUIRED
during other litigation with that company.
and they are i'll existence to-day
On the bondholderS coming into the state
court so that ! could reach them prepared
al the earliest possible time. pleas of inter
vcntion in the name of the state seeking to
have the bonds Cancelled on the facts
stated.
The plaintiffs were represented by
Messrs. Farrar & Kruttschnitt OF New Or
leans. Turner & Ralston and Sherman of
New York, Willie. Mott & Balinger of
Galveston, and Finley, Marsh & Butler of
Tyler. The Missouri, Kansas and Texas
was represented by Messrs. Anderson &
Stearne and Beach of New York, MIR Ha-
german of St. Louis, Hancock. Shelley &
Hancock of Austin, and Woldert & johnson
of Tyler. The international and Great
Northern had for its counsel Mr. Cochran
of st. Louis, and Messrs. Whitaker < Bon
ner of Tyler The state was represented by
Mr.. r. II. Harrison any Office assistant
and myself.
AT the fall term, 1889, after protracted ar
gument as to the law OF the case the court
overruled all exceptions to the states plei.
operation OF law
At the March term, 1890, the executions
TO the states right TO intervene were again
fully discussed and again overruIed by the
court. upon which the bondholders made
application for and continued the case UNI
til the next term. AT the last term. Octo-
Der, 1890, all the parties were there and
the exceptions we're again presented and
discussed before the court on the states
right TO intervene, and for the third time
We're oVerruled.
During this and each preceding term of
the court II was apparent to me. Us well as
to other observers and attorneys III the case.
that the bondholders and the Missouri.
Kansas and Texas. which claimed to own |
all the stock of the company. were trying to |
their troubles. At that and |
each term of the court the state was pre- |
pared and ready for trial. During the last |
term however, the case had been set of |
from day to day on account of the sickness |
of Mr.. Stearne, one of the Missouri, Kan |
sas aud Texas attorneys. The state had |
called Tor Il jury III the ease, 10 which the |
bOndholders seriously objected When the |
time had arrived for Il trial ortO uncondi- |
tionally set day therefor. the bondholderS |
took L nonSuit, in other words. dismissed |
their action.
10 this the state protested. asserting the
right to he heard on its plea of Intervention |
l9hitts ipt iIIdllNt EtllCl wherein Il |
sought TO have the bonds cancelled and the |
company restrained from abusing its cor
porate powers by paving u fictitious claIu
The court overruled the states objections |
and dismissed the action. ! excepted. as
signed errors and carried il 10 the supreme
,ourt on appeal. We argued the case nearly
Ill day on Tuesday, the 18th OF last De:.em-
DER, before the supreme court At TYLER
The court transferred il 10 Galveston.
keeping it there without action. trans
TERED II TO Austin ana finally decided it
against the state on the - day of last
June.
This case squarely presented the issue as
o he right of tine state TO cancel bonds IS
'ued in express violation of the conStitu-
ion and laws by railway companies which
he had chartered II further presented
he question of the right Of the state to re
train such companies from using their cor
'orate funds with which TO pay ''watered'
,ondS and fictitious debts While not pass
NC on the legality of the bonds, the su-
'reme court held that the state did not have
UGH authority; that the public did not have
he interest i'll such questions as would au-
horize the action. And SO the case was
ettled. 4 motion for rehearing is pending
nd the question has been transferred to the |
-yler term for consideration.
Such are the facts bearing on and relat-
no to all of the cases | have had against the
and Great Northern.
Pending action in the supreme court on
he first case against that company, |
therein the state was asking for a receiver
D be appointed to take charge of its prop
rty, on the ground of its failure to comply
Nth its duty TO the publid under the law.
he case of Jay Gould vs.. the international !
I'd Great Northern, and the receiverShlp |
Ihich resulted therefrOm, all occurred at
yler without my knowledge. The receiv- |
rship had been granted before | knew or
card or had any information whatever OF
!. [ have always believed that the move
lent of Mr.. Gould to collect the debt he |
aimed to be due him by that company was |
n the purpose of forestalling the said quo |
-arranto action of the state
Had the state succeeded the property |
'ould have been taken charge of by state
Aceiver, as has been done III the East Line |
use. II would have been the duty of that
aceiver to resist all fictitious bonds and
ocks. In this way it was my intention TO
ake the fight against what | know. if
lere is any virtue i'll facts and vitality in
he constitution, to be an Illegal. fictitious.
and outrageous incumbrance
pom public highway for which the state !
as done so much
AT no time previous TO this while was
did have an opportunity
test those stocks and bonds. They were
ed and owned By non-residents in New |
ork and other places. who neither came in
erSon nor sent them into this state They
Id never brought themselves within the
risdiction of the state courts, and | had
} opportunity of bringing action against
em under the law