The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1893-07-19


St. Paul & Pacific railroad which was
then going begging for purchaser.
He had been engaged with Commo-
dore Klttson in the transportation
business of the Red River of the
North, and he knew the possibilities
of that country, and through that
was enabled to enlist Mr.. KittsOn;
after which it was easier to enlist
Sir Donald A. Smith, Mr.. Stephens,
and others. l personally know that
at that time any gentleman who had
means could join in the enterprise,
and that Mr.. Hill solicited and urged
all of our citizens who were supposed
to have money, to do so. All such
had an opportunity to embark in his
enterprise, or organize one of their
own. But the truth is, that he alone
seemed to realize what the future
had in store for those who would
join with him and make it a success.
In common with many others l, at
this time, heard him predict and de-
scribe, with an accuracy that today
is marvellous to me, the future
growth and development of the re-
gion of country which would be land
is now trayersed by and tributary to
his then projected railway. 1t then
appeared to be the improbable idea
of an enthusiast; today 1 behold it
all a reality. He succeeded in enlist
ing capital to buy this railroad and
it's land grant and rights and fran
chises, and bought it at the highest
it could then be sold for; and who can
say that, as things then appeared,
it was not all it was then worth. If
not, why did not others bid for it?
Mr.. Hill and his associates undoubt-
edly purchased that railroad at bar
gain, but in doing so they simply
took advantage of the: circumstances
which rendered it possible for them
to do so, and of an opportunity that
was then open to others. Whatever
ground the directorate of the Great
Northern railroad, with Mr.. Hill at
it's head, may have furnished for crit
icism, as to it's conduct and manage
ment, I am satisfied that there is
none for insinuating that these Hol-
land bondholders and stockholders
were defrauded by Mr.. Hill and his
associates.
Now, as to the decision of the court
which Mr.. Burke sets forth in his
communication: that decision was
simply upon the legal question raised
upon the demurrer to Mr.. Farley's
complaint) as to whether a person
acting in the fiduciary capacity of re-
clever, could legally enter into such a
contract as he claimed to have made
with MeSsrs. Hill and Kittson. AS
receiver, Mr.. Farley was an officer of
the court, and the condemnation of
the transaction by that court was
aimed at Mr.. Farley who, it should
be borne in mind, was in that suit
claiming that he had while such re-
ceiver entered into an agreement
with Messrs. Hill and Kittson by
which he was to aid them in purchas-
ing the bonds of the Hollanders.
This is manifest from the syllabus
(head note) to that decision giving
the substance thereof. Had our cor
respondent pursued his investigation
further, he would have found that
subsequent to the rendering of that
decision(see 80 Federal Reporter page
513) that action was tried, on the mer-
it's thereof, and that the court, Judge
Brewer delivering the opinion, decid-
ed that Messrs. Hill and KittsOn nev-
er made such an agreement with Far
ley. The opinion in that case is too
lengthy to publish here. 1t shows
that the various railroad properties
acquired by Mr.. Hill and his associ-
ates "were mortgaged in several
mortgages amounting in the aggre-
gate to $4,000, 0OU'; that the Hol-
land holders were represented by the
then well-known banking firm of
j. S. Kennedy & Co., of New York
city, at whose request Mr.. Farley was
first appointed receiver. After an
elaborate review and discussion of
the testimony, the opinion concludes
as follows:
"The surroundings are potent
against the truth of compliments
claim. Very likely many of the
things testified to by Messrs. Farley
and Fisher were said by Messrs. Hill
and Kittson to them. Their bust
ness relations were such that they
were often brought in contact, and
doubtless had frequent conversations;
but doubt not that whatever they
have truthfully said were the gath
cred fragments. of many talks-mere
disjectd naembra. l cannot believe
from the testimony that at any time
the complainant and the defendants
had that full, distinct talk which
complainant and Mr.. Fisher testify
to, or that there was ever a definite
coming together of the minds
of the. parties in reference to
an agreement for the purchase Of
these bonds. In other words, 1 think