The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-07-09
ABOUT TO CLOSE
To.DAY THE GALVESTON
LEGISLATIVE INvEsTIGA-
TIoN WINDS UP WITH
FLOURISH.
naMPBELL AGAIN ON THE STAND
what He Had to Say About COL
the News and the Rest of ihem'
Finley's Speech.
CAMPBELL AGAIN ON THE STAND

o'clock this morning. hecelNei C"hiP
hell resumed the stand, and after max
ING some corrections i'll the Galveston
News report of his testimony uhuer
direct examination witness produced
numerous statements, showing the re-
ceints and disbursements OF the ROAD
since it had been placed in the re-
ceivers' hands.
The amount expendedin betterment
and placing the property in condl-
ton to meet the requirements OF traf-
fic, the amount paid out on claims and
interest on bonds of the Galveston,
Houston and Henderson road and the
Colorado River Bridge company.
He also submitted a comparative
statement that showed that the earn =
ipgs were larger under the receiver
ship than they were prior to the APP
pointment of receiver. The whole
testimony showed that the condition
OF property had been vastly improved
under the receiver and that the depo-
sitary's monthly balances, since the
receivership, had averaged over $780,
600 per month Witness also gave
tabulated statement of the operating
expenses OF the road. That since his
appointment, he had assumed the &C.
tive management of the road, had
stopped all rebates and discrimina'
lions to be made, that the rates were
dictated by other lines. They did not
dictate to the International and
Great Northern; the company
did not dictate to other
lines. They however, prorated
on an equal basis with other lines.
Witness said no railway can dictate
When asked his policy, witness replied
he had policy in regard to operating
the railway, but to disclose it would be
detrimental to the business interests OF
the company. He was managing and
declined to answer. AS to the commits
sion to supervise and formulate rates
to govern railways in their business
methods, witness believed the railways
need commission as much as the PEG
pie, and did not believe in favoring one
to the d etriment of another.
Cross examination by Robertson
Bonner & Bonner were the depository
of the receivership, They had $25, OOO
deposited in the First National bank
of Longview.
The First National did not honor
the checks of Bonner & Bonner, be-
cause it was not necessary. The $685.
900 was charged to Bonner & Bonner,
who made deposit in obedience to
the order of court. Witness was here
asked to give a monthly statement OF
receipts, disbursements and deposits
under the receivership, from and in
Guiding the 18th of February 1889,
down to the 1st day of June, 1891.
This witness did, and the exhibit
shows that the gross receipts for that
period were $12 500, 097 93, tho gross
expenditures were $l2, 5S7, 979.73, while
the total deposits were $40, 800, $50 56.
Witness stated that the differ
ence between the receipts and
deposits was caused by leg
itimate disbursements made at
Palestine and never went into the de-
pository. Witness stated that TIE re-
suit of the receivership was because
some parties were seeking to get judg
ment against the company, while in
tervenors were seeking to place the
property in the hands of receivers
and thereby secure an equitable settle
ment of all claims against the COM
pany. He was not present when the
receivers were appointed. Did not
suppose anything, and was not sur
prised when the court decided upon
the receivership. or when he appoint
ed the receivers. There was nothing
irregular in the courts proceedings.
Witness name would have been pre-
sented to the court for appointment as
oce of the receivers if Col. Bonner's
name had not been presented. He
heard so on the street When he ac
cepted the position of special master it
was generally understood that he was
to receive $1,000 per annum. 1t was
a matter that had been discussed by
McCord, Duncan, Finley Bonner and
Others. They had talked about it. 1t
was no secret Everybody who asked
him he told them it was $4,000, and
thought they fully understood he
was to receive that amount.
He did not know whether the bond
or stockholders had such knowledge.
They had made no objection to it. In
conversation with Bonner in his bug
gy he did not tell him that McCord
had allowed him $4,000. Witness de-
clined to answer If the International
and Great Northern had not handled
cotton and given to the Mallory line
of steamers at Galveston more than
they had to the factories of that CITY.
and If this was not an unjust discrimi-
nation. Witness said he did not pro
pose to come here and publish traffic
arrangements with water lines and
other roads.
The committee deciding it was a
proper question, the witness stated he
did not think the company derived
as much revenue from cotton delivered
to the Mallory line as on local compe.
tition, but could not say positively. as
he did not have the tariff sheets. Nc
Cord told him at Gilmer that he would
Il 4