The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-07-04
THE CENTRAL'S AFFAIRS.
PRESIDENT CoMER'S REPLY TO
MBSsRs. CLYDE AND OTHERS.


The Main Points in the Litigation Be-
tween the Central and Richmond and
Danvine Stated - The Action of
Judges Pardee and speer Defended.
A Statement OF the Centrars Barn
ings.
From Saturdays Financial Chronicle
Mr.. r. M. Conner, president Of the Cen
trial Railroad OF Georgia. and chairman OF
the receivers, has prepared an answer to
the statement made by Messrs. Clyde and
others when the Richmond and Dauvills
receivers were appointed. aud published In
the Chronicle Of June is on page 1,O1O. In
justice to Mr.. Conner aud his associates, his
reply, expressed In temperate and courteous
language, Is published below:
NEW York. June %. 1892
| To the Editor of the Financial ChrouIcIe:
| fnasmuch as you have published IN the COL
| umns of your dessrvedly influential journal the
statement Of Messrs. Clyde, Maben and Goodby
with reference 70 the Georgia Centrals Affairs,
which seriously reflects upon tbs people and the
courts Of Georgia, am sure you win not close
| your columns to this reply. Mr.. Clyde and his
| associates complain OF the action OF the federal
| court in placing the Georgia Central in the
hands Of receivers. THIS action was taken upon
| the suit Of a stockholder of that company. Ger
| nor its receivers are in anywise responsible for
that litigation. The averments contained in
the comp ainant's bill were such that the
court deemed it its duty to take cog
nizance OF the case for the purpose OF
adjudicating the issues therein presented.
For this purpose, and IN order to preserve
the status quo until the cause could be properly
determined, the court constituted the then
president Of the Georgia Central, Gen. f. P.
Alexander, Its temporary receiver, authorizing
and directing him to continue and conduct the
bu Of ha wit in
books and accounts as he had heretofore been
doing. Gen. Alexander had been president OF
the company for some years previously, having
been chosen for that position and continued in
IL by the Richmond and Danville people. When
the hearing was had upon the application for
the appointment OF receiver, the Central
Railroad Company fled its answer affirming
the validity OF the lease under which the Dan
vile had been operating the Central system,
and otherwise opposed tho application for the
appointment Of receivers. The Danville on the
other hand made no opposition to this proceed
ing, but on the contrary abandoned the
possession of the property and surrendered
it to the court and repudinted the lease. That
company asked the court to accept its surrender
OF the property and to confirm its action in this
behalf, The counsel Of the Central company
argued earnestly in opposition 70 the Appiica-
ton for receivers. respectfully submit there
fore that the Danville people are in no position
to complain OF the action OF the court, which
doubtless was largely influenced by the attitude
and course of the Danville company. Inasmuch
as this company abandoned the property and
surrendered Il to the court, the appointment Of
receivers to manage the property followed as a
necessary and logical result. at this hearing
Judge PSrdee, the circuit judge presided with
Judge SpeeT, and came from Now Orleans for
this purpose at judge Speer's special instance
ana request. The opinion Of the court appoint
ing the present receivers and deciding against
the right of the Terminal company 70 vote its
block Of 1900 shares Of stock and thus con-
troll the Central Railroad Company,
was delivered by Judge PArdee. Mr.
Clyde and his associates declare that
this decision is unparalleled In the history Of
law, and that the action Of the court was uu-
precedented, and is believed to be illegal"
Without pausing to comment upon this criticism
OF the lud gment OF able and experienced jurists
of high station and national reputation, l beg
leave to suggest that the Danyille company had
the right TO appeal from this decision to the cir
cult court OF appeals and submit that II its
counsel or representatives had really believed
that the decision was absolutely Illegal, un-
precedsnted and unparalleled in the history Of
the law, " 1t is "a reasonable presumption 20 in
dulge that the appeal would have been promptly
taken. On the contrary, however, this decision
was acQuies seed in. This decision was predi-
Gated upon the following provision of che CEN
stitution OF the state OF Georgia, which was
adopted in 1877. and was therefore part Of our
fundamental law at the time, and long before
the time, that the DanVille and Terminal COM
panies acquired their holdings In the Central
railroad: THE general assembly OF this state
shall not have power to authorize any corpora
ton to buy shares or stock In any other corpo-
ration in this state, or elsewhere, OF TO mako
any contract or agreement whatever with any
such corporation, which may have the effect or
DO Intended TO have the effect to defeat or les
sen competition in their respective businesses,
| or to encourage monopolies, and all such con-
tracts and agreements shall be Illegal and
| void
Mr. CLYDE and his associates further COM
| plain of the action of the court in restoring the
| possession to the receivers OF the Central Rail-
| road Company OF the New England and Savan-
nah steamship stock which was the property
| OF that company, and was placed in escrow to
abide determination. by arbitration, under
the lease, OF the Centrars liability for . certain
| claim preferred against it by the Danville com
| pany in December, 1881, about the time when
| the Central railroad and Southwestern railroad
| dividends for which the Danville company was
| liable under the lease, became due. Space does
not permit me to discuss the facts attending
| this matter, but respectfully venture the aSser
| ton that there is no one familiar with the facts
| who really believes that the Danvlle company
| had the slightest claim upon this stock. and
deem it sufficient, In reply to the criticism of
! Mr. Clyde and his associates, to cite the opinion
| OF the counsel of the Richmond and Danville
| and the Terminal company, who, in recently
published and well considered interview
| OF his in the Atlanta Journal
in referring to this decision, says: II regard the
| decision of Judge Speer as doing substantial
| justice between the parties and such as was
! quired by the spirit of equity" Again, this
| able and distinguished counsel says of this d.
csion; at IL just such decision as l would
| have rendered had been in his place" Again,
| in the same interview, this learned gentleman
! further declares: Judge Speer has been cour-
|
deavoring TO fully protect the interests Of all
parties He feels the dignity of his judicial
station, and feel sure that all parties will re-
| ceive patient hearing and impartial decision
from him" This, be it observed, is a recent
interview published after the suit OF the Central
| against tho Richmond and Danville was brought,
and while IL was pending, Surely, then, II it be
true as stated by Mr.. Clyde and bis associates,
| that they are advised that none of these APP
parently arbitrary acts of this court are legal
and that they cannot be sustained" it is evil
dent that they were not 80 advised by
the counsel Of the DanviIle or Terminal
companies, who arc certainly most
! competent to speak upon this subject and
surely 1T is remarkable tnat from none OF these
decisions has an appeal been entered. It will be
| borne IN mind too Ihat the question as to the
| right of the Terminal company to vote its a.
! 900 shares of stock has been the subject OF two
| different and distinct decisions.
| Mr. Clyde and his associates complain OF the
| numerous garnishments and attachments that
have been issued against the Richmond and
! Danville Company in Georgia. 1t is I'M
| doubtedly true that numerous garnishments
and attachments have been issued against this
| company, but it is likewise true that they we're
| predicated upon claims against that company
which are valid and undisputed obligations, and
l have yet to learn that the debtor who defaults
upon his obligations has right to complain of
creditors who seek by legal process to recover
| their debts.