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


fore the receivers were appointed
Herndon, Chiffon. Duncan and Others
held a secret meeting and parceled
out the officers, attorneyships. etc,
under the receivers. Is this SOP have
also heard that by arrangement Hern
don was appointed general solicitor
with salary of 10000; Chiffon and
Duncan general attorneys, 81 800 each,
and various other people got Offices at
different salaries. Is this sol
have also heard that after the re.
ceivers were appointed meeting OF
the board OF directors was called to
meet at Palestine and On the morning
of their meeting Mr.. Harrison, assist
ant attorney general, appeared at
Palestine, having come through from
Austin the night before and served an
injunction upon the directors prevent
ing them from holding any meeting
or from taking any steps to deiehd the
tigatioh again.t the company, ana
t rat this INJUNCTION was sued OUT ny
Attorney General Hogg, in Travis
county, in suit which the state was
made party and the state claimed
SIC, 900, 900 damages from the lnterna-
tIoual road for failure to build It's road
from Longview to Jefferson in accor-
dance with its charter. Are these facts
truel
| have heard that Jay Gould got
Judgment on his debt long ago, that
the bondholders dismissed their suits
last September but that the IF ceiver.
ship is still il full blast and no APP
pearance OF any intention to close il
up. Is this so? and if so can you give
me any reason for the appointment of
receivers in the first instance, or for
their retention now?
| have heard much more about this
business, but l want to know the
truth about the above, Ii those
things are true, my duty as legislator
is plain and shall not hesitate to ask
for their investigation. The pure ad-
ministration of justice and the good
name of the state demand that an in
vestigation s..ould be had at once.
Isignedl G. B. GERALD.
WHITTAKER's REPLY.
TYLER, Tex, June Colon. g. B
Gerald, Austin, Tex: My Dear Sir
l have yours of the 9th inst. In reply
have to say hat my firm represents
the plaintiff in the suit Of Jay Gould
VS.. the International and Great North.
ern Railroad company, in which the
rsceivers of the International and
Great Northern we're originally APP
pointed, and for this reason my posi-
ton is such that would not like to
have the appearance of voluntarily
beginning an investigation, nor have
the inclination further than sense OF
justice requires.
Courtesy, however, requires me to
reply to your inquiries.
At the February term, 1889, of our
district court, our firm instituted
suit for Mr.. Gould VS.. the International
and Great Northern railroad company,
on plain promissory notes for several
hundred Thousand dollars. The suit
was regularly docketed. citation wa
issued and served, and on the ,st day
of the term we appeared in court for
the plaintiff, and Mr.. E. e. Merriam
of st. Louis, for the defendant com
pauy, with power of attorney duly
executed by the company, after the
fling of the suit authorizing him to
confess judgment in favor of Mr..
Gould.
When this step was proposed to be
taken, Mr.. Horace Chiffon promptly
arose and made objection to the entry
of the Judgment; having filed no plead
ing, however, and only stating YER
baliy that he intended to file inter
ventions in behalf of certain clients,
Who held claims for personal injuries
The court thereupon refused to enter
the judgment and postponed the case
until Friday, appearance day.
In the meantime, Mr.. Chiffon filed
two interventions, one in behalf OF J.
W. Mitchell, who had q Judgment
against the Missouri Pacific Railway
company mot the International and
Great Northern), which was then
pending on appeal in the supreme
court on supersedeas bond, and
which Judgment was afterward re-
versed and remanded and one in behalf
OF Gus Taylor, who had suit pending
for mental anguish against the Inter
national and Great Northern and
Missouri Pacific Railway companies,
which had never been tried, and which,
In my opinion, was manifestly bad on
general demurrer.
Mr.. Duncan filed an intervention on
behalf OF WIN. Brazzel, who had suit
pending for personal injuries against
the International and Great Northern
and Missouri Pacific Railway compa-
MES.
Mr.. Herndon interviewed in behalf
of the Missouri, Kansas and Texas
railway, claiming to be q stakeholder,
and all the interventions were under
oath alleging that the Gould debt was
fraudulent and fictitious, and for the
appointment Of a receiver or receivers.
After some preliminary skirmishing,
the details of which cannot now give
you, the matter came up for a hearing
on Saturday of the first week of court.
Judge Baker of Houston, appeared
with Mr.. Merriam fol the Interna-
tional and Great Northern and vigo-
rously opposed the receivership upon
many tenable grounds. Notwithstand
ing, on that day, I. r. Bonner and N.
w. Finley were appointed receivers.
Will state In this connection that a
current rumor was prevalent during
the whole week before the mat ter was
acted on, that receivers were to be az
pointed, the rumors conflicting slight.
ly as to who were to be receivers. Col.
Bonner for reasons satisfactory tC
himself did not signify his acceptance
of the trust until the Monday follow