The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-03-27
WANTS The CONSENT OF ALL
Only 0ne-f fourth Of the BOndhOldNTS
Asked Mr.. Corners Removal.

the Trustees of All the Bondholders
Asked It-Mr. Joline, Representing
the Central Trust Company, Didn't
Want to Assume the Responsibility.
Mr.. Corners Answer to the Bond
holders Petition - Judge Pardee
Took the Papers, But 1t is Believed
He VIII Make no Change.
From the indications at the hearing
yesterday concerning the receivership Of
the Savannah and Western railroad, it
might easily be inferred under the cir
cumstances that the court is not inclined
to grant the petition for the removal Of
Mir. Conner, and the substitution OF new
receiver in his place.
Judge Pardee did not convene the cir
cult court until sometime after II O'Clock
A H. Joline, representing the Central
Trust Company, trustee for the Savannah
and Western bonds, presented 70 the
court the request of the boudholders for
the application for a change Of re-
ceivers, and also the petition asking for
the change
He stated the grounds in the request
from the bondholders, namely that the
Savannah and Western was being oper-
ated in the interest Of the Central rail
road and that Mr.. Conner was trying to
saddle a large and unjust debt on the for
mer road. He said, however. that the
Central Trust Company was trustee not
only of the Savannah and Western mort
gage, but also of the Centrals consoli-
dated mortgage, and occupied therefore
a peculiar position, The bondholders,
however, were represented by their own
counsel
RECEIVER cOMER's ANSWER.
Mr.. S B. Adams, of Denmark g.
Adams, counsel for the receivers of the
Savannah and Western, read Mr.. Corners
answer to the statements made in the
petition.
With regard to the statement that the
Savannah and Western is being operated
in the interest of the Central instead of
its creditors, the answer said it was not
true. 1t denied that the Savannah and
Western had suffered through being
operated in connection with the Central
He stated that the net earnings of the
Savannah and Western for January were
S43,O97.19, but said they were only S28, 261
for February instead of about $780,
coo as stated in the petition.
He went on to show that the road is in
better condition now than it has been
in years He claimed the receivers of
the Savannah and Western owed the re-
ceiyers of the Central q large amount Of
money but said the creditors of the road
had had the fullest opportunity to oppose
the claim and make their defense. He
said he had no desire TO remain receiver
ii the creditors Of the road desired a sub
stitution, but he thought it would be un-
fortunate for both the Savannah and
Western and the Central to sever the in
terests of the two.
Receiver r. j. Lowry also answered the
petition, stating that he denied that the
road was being operated in the interest
of the Central With regard to the in
debtedness claimed, he said nothing but
admitted the other allegations to be cor
rect.
Mr.. A r. Lawton. Jr, also read a re-
ply from Receivers Conner and Hayes, of
the Central, showing how it was best for
the interests Of both roads that they
should be operated one in connection with
the other.
THE BONDHOLDERs' POSITION.
Mr.. A. C. King, of Atlanta, who repre-
seuts the bOndholders' committee called
attention to the application for an issue
of receivers certificates to the amount of
about SOL 600 on the Savannah and West
ern railroad, TO pay the receivers of the,
Central for moneys expended. He said
that an examination into the claim proved
large part of it to be unfounded as was
shown by the masters report A large
amount had been found in the accounts
between the two, charged as taxes, which
had never been paid, and an indebtedness
ENsMHH s.nr ID
had been discharged by the Richmond and
Danville. He said also that the Savan-
nah and Western was not such distorted
road as some of the attorneys on the other
side had endeavored to make out. He pro-
ceeded to show how the different parts of
it had other connections through which it
could be operated.
In support of his claim that the road
was being operated in the interests of the
Central he called attention to the testi-
mony of Maj. w. T. Shellman. He
claimed that this showed the Central
routed all its business through Macon so
as to give it longer haul, instead of di-
viding it with the Savannah and Western.
Notwithstanding this. he claimed the ex-
penses of operation were charged equally
upon the Savannah and Western. The
Central, he said, had other routes which
came in competition with the Savannah
and Western, besides that through Macon
He referred TO the Mobile and Girard and
the Montgomery and Eufaula.
He charged that so far as the accounts
between the roads were concerned Re
ceiver Conner occupied a very anomalous
and inconsistent position. He was in the
position Of representing two sets of credi
tors, and while representing such differ
ent interests made contracts with him
self. He did not deny that Mr. Conner
had done his duty to the Central, but sale
in doing his duty TO the Central he helC
that Mr.. Conner could not also consist
emily do his duty to the Savannah an(
Western. He reiterated that position tina
the Central routed all OF its business t
and from the west through Macon.
LITTLE COLLoQUY.
Here ensued a little colloouv between
MIR. Henry Crawford and Mr.. King. il
which Mr.. Crawford helt that if a sepa
rate receiver were appointed the Contra
would then route its business through
Atlanta and get still longer haul. cut
ting the Savannah and Western our
altogether.
Judge Pardee asked how long since the
interest on the Savannah and Western
bonds had been paid. 1t was not since
March !, 1892.
he wanted TO know also how many
bonds Mr. King and MIR. Leopold Walach
who was also present. represented.