The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1891-03-12
.-=-.--..-----=-------
VOL. VII.
THE THREE C's REcEIvERsHIP.
u Is Probable that Mr.. Chamberlain
will Get the Appointment.

to appoint a permanent receiver OF
the Charleston, Cincinnati and Chi.
cago RAILROAD under the auit brought
by the Finance company Of Pennsyl-
wanna. Three candidates for receiver
ship we're presented by various parties
interested-Samucl Lord, the tempo
rary receiver; D Ii Chamberlain, the
receiver of the South Carolina railway,
ana P, P. Dickinson, OF New York.
The report Of Receiver Lord, who
has had charge Of the road from De.
cember II, 1880, to the present time,
shows the following figures; Receipts,
$56 677 disbursements, $46,6S6; cash
on hand, A,99l The gross earnings
during that term were $4,000. and
the operating expenses, $4,000; de-
icit, $4,000.
Newman Erb, of Boston, represent
ing about 100000 first mortgage
bonds, asks for Mr. Chamberlain's ap-
pointmcnt as receiver. ]. N. Nathans,
Of Charleston, representing first mort
gage bondholders, asked for the ap.
pointment of Samuel Lord. H. A. NJ
Smith, representing 100000 bond.
holders, nominated P. P. Dickinson,
OF New York.
During the discussion the township
bond question came up again. Ira B.
Jones, in behalf OF Cane Creek town
ship, Lancaster, entered suit against
the $4,000 subscription voted to the
Three C's road, on the ground that 1t
was unconstitutional, being in excess
of s per cent. of the assessed value OF
taxable property in the township. The
court took the papers.
RECEIVER CHAMBERLAIN APPOINTED,
News and Courier Feb. o5
In the United States Circuit Court
yesterday an order was signed ap'
pointing Ex-Governor D, Il. Chamber
lain permanent receive. for the Three
C's road. The following is t1e text Of
, the decree;
In the Circuit Court OF the United
States for the District OF South Car
olina, in Equity--The Finance Com
mittee, of Pennsylvania, and Others,
compliments, vs. the Charleston,
Cincinnati and Chicago Railroad
Company and othe 8, defendants.
This is motion for the appoint
ment OF a permanent receiver for the
defendant railroad company. AT the
outset, upon the fling Of the bill, 1t was
absolutely necessary in the interest Of
the creditors ard mortgages OF the
defendant company 10 appoint re-
ceIver Immediately. The railroad ex'
tended over three States and passed
through se1eral counties Of each,
where courts were in existence having
jurisdiction to adjudicate claims aris-
ing within their territorial limits.
Maniiestly it was Of the utmost inn
portance that the cor'ro, oI To nne
should be in one place and under Ore
Jurisdiction. Endless confusion would
otherwise have arisen. Questions OF
priority of liens and of the rights OF
different parties could thus be uni.
formiy determined, and while the sale
Of the road is an entirety, If the result
OF the litigation should result in a
sale might produce fluid for distri'
button among creditors, the sale Of so
much Of it as the cours OF the State
had within their respective jurisdic'
ton would result in failure.
The appointment of the temporary
receiver was made at the suggestion
OF complainants, whose counsel he
was, because he was a person well
AuOHu w Vic CNuib ub q t0W W
great ability and OF unquestioned in
tegrity, and his conduct OF affairs since
his appointment has justified, in the
highest degree, the confidence OF both
the complainants and the court. But
il has been the uniform practice OF the
court in this circuit to appoint no one
receiver Of railroad corporation who
has been one OF its officers, or who haC
anything to do with its control priol
to its insolvency. We have always
thought that while the condition o
the company might have been caused
by misfortune and by no fault Of it
direction, nevertheless those who wer'
about to lose their property, or have i
placed in jeopardy, we're entitled il
all reason and fairness to ne v man
agment, though perhaps not bette
one. In the one case there was som'
hope in the other there could be ex
pected nothing but the former result
So here, where we have she names o
three persons suggested to us by par
ties in interest for appointment a
permanent receiver, we think, Will
we have the highest respect for MI
Dickinson, he ought not to be mad
permanent receiver, because he was
director Of the road and q party to th
suit.
And while, il we were left to do a
our inelinations would lead us, W
would continue Mr Lord as receives
vet when We think that as he il cour
sell for the complainants, and We ca
see from what has already been di
closed in the cause that there are bi
ter and conflicting interests, all partit
will have sense OF security in th
conduct OF the receivership if a part
entirely disinteiested be appointe,