Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-07-02
Proceedings Before the Inves-
tigating Committee.
RECEIVER CAMPBELL'S STORY.
Detailed Statements Showing the Receipts and
Disbursements of the Road.
Mover Believed the Railways Needed 1
Commission as Much as the People.
Increased Earnings Under
the Receivership.
Special TO the Gazette.

! GtttlNefSHlp at ~ d. Ill
! Receiver Campbell resumed the stand,
I and after making some corrections IN the
/ Galveston News report of his testimony,
| under direct examination, the witness pro
| duced numerous statements showing the
| receipts and disbursements Of the road
! since it had been placed in the receivers
! hands, the amount expended In betterment
and placing the property in condition To
| meet the requirements of traffic. the amount
| paid out on claims and interest on bonds
| of the Galveston, Houston and
| Henderson road and of the Colorado bridge
| company. He also submitted comparative
| statement that showed the earnings were
larger under the receivership than they
were prior to their appointment. The
! whole testimony showed that the CON
! dition of the property had been vastly i'm
J proved under the receivers ana that the de-
pository's monthly balances since
| the receiverShip had averaged over
1905, 900 per month. The witness also gave
a tabulated statement of the operating
expenses of the road. Since his appoint
ment he had assumed active management
of the road had stopped all rebates and
determinations, and would not allow re-
bates and DETERMINATIONS to be made.
Rates were not dictated by other lines and
| the International and Great Northern rail-
! way company did not
DICTATE TO OTHER LINES.
| They, however, prorated on an equal basis
| with other lines The witness said no one
railway could dictate. When asked his
| policy the witness replied he had 4 policy
in regard to operating the railway. but TO
disclose it would be detrimental
20 the business interests Of the
company he was managing and
he declined to answer As to u commission
to supervise and formulate rules to govern
railways in their business methods. the
| witness never believed the railways needed
a commission rs much As the people, and he
did not believe in favoring one to the detri
ment of the other
CrCss-examination by RoDertsOu-Bonner
| & Bonner were the depository of the re-
ceivership. They had $25, 600 deposited in
the First national bank Of Longview. The
First national did not honor the checks of
Bonner & Bonner because it was not neces-
sary The $4,000 was charged TO Bonner
s. Bonner who made the deposit in ODE
, dience to the order of the court. The wit
ness was here asked TO give
\ MONTHLY STATEMENT
of the receipts, disbursements and de
positS under the receiYership from and III
GLIDING the 9TH Of February, 1889, down to
the LIST day of June, 1891. This the witness
did and the exhibit showed that the gross
receipts for that period were ST., S06, 991.93,
the gross expenditures were sl2,5S. 1906,
| while the total deposits were
SO, 350, 535. st. The witness stated that
the difference between the receipts and de-
positS was caused by legitimate diSburse-
ments made at Palestine. which never went
I into the depository. The witness stated
that the result of the receiverShip was be-
cause some parties were seeking to get
Judgment against the company, while
the intervenors were seeking TO
| place the property in the hands of
receivers and thereby secure an equitable
settlement of all claims against the com
pany. He was not present when the re-
ceivers were appointed. He did not sup
pose any thing and was not surprised when
! the court decided upon the receivership or
when he appointed the receivers. There
was
NOTHING IRREGULAR
in the courts proceedings. The witness
! name would have been presented TO the
| court for appointment if Col. Bonner's
name had not been presented. He heard so
on the street. When he accepted the
position of special master it was gener-
ally understood that he was 10
was matter that had been discussed by
McCord, Duncan, Finley, Bonner and
Others They had talked about it, it was
no secret. Everybody who asked him
he told it was $4,000, and he thought they
fully understood he was TO re
seive that amount He did not know
whether the bond on stockholders had
such knowledge. They had made no OBJ
lection to il. In conversation with MIR.
Bonner in the buggy he did not tell him
that McCord had allowed him $4,000 The
witness declined TO answer If the lnterna-
tional and Great Northern mad not handled
cotton and given it to the Mallory line at
Galveston at lower rate than they had
to the factors Of that city, and if this was
not unjust discrimination The witness
said he did not propose to come here and
publish his traffic arrangements with water
lines and other roads. The committee de-
cided it was a proper question. The wit
ness said that he did not think the company
derived as much revenue from cotton de-
livered to the Mallory line as on
other competition, but he could not
say positively, as he did not have
the tariff sheets. 1AIcCord told him at Gil
mer that he would dispose of the receiver
ship made vacant by the death of Eddy at
TYLER. McCord told the witness of the tel
egrams he (A1cCord) had received. The
witness did not tell McCord of the tele
grams he had received. The witness had
not received a telegram from S. II. h.
Clark He knew Clark had expressed a
preference for his appointment as receiver,
but he did not tell McCord. II told it to
Duncan and others. Whitaker and Bon
ner opposed the witnesses appointment.
They did not want a receiver, and if one
was appointed they did not want him.
Clark's wish was matter OF his knowl-
edge and ne did not intend to allow it TO
enter as factor in his appointment Whit
take and Bonner being opposed TO his ap-
pointment. had filed a protest against it.
The witness explained his examination of
Gould's claims and reiterated what he
stated yesterday. He believed when the
receivers paid the $4,000 they had acted
without authority and had better
go about reimbursing themselves. His re-
port was filed in the clerks office. The in
vestigation disclosed the fact that Gould
had legitimate claim against the Inter
national and Great Northern, and it was
not fact that Gould was trans
ferring the fund ont of the Golfers
of the company into his own pocket. He
never read Bonner's petition and he ex-
planned the general orders of the court. He
came to the conclusion that the Galveston
News claim for $1,000 was irregular upon
finding it. When Investigated no witnesses
were called or sworn. Coz. Eddy
made statement. That with
Col Bonner's letter coupled together
with the assessment against the company
for the lobby at Austin furnished the basis
for my adverse report against the News
claim. He gave no notice of investigation,
but wrote to Bonner & Eddy to replace the
amound in thirty days or he would
present the matter to the court. Whitaker
Il Bonner were attorneys for Jay Gould and
not the International and Great Northern
therefore they had no legitimate claim
against the latter for attorneys foes. He