The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1895-08-22
COULD THEY LEASE ?
THEDECIsION OF1875 G TED AS
GIVING SUCH AUTHORITY TO
THE DIRECTORS WAS
MINORITY DECISION.
PEARSON, TOO, DISSENTED.

PEARSON. TOO, DISSENTE0.
And Wrote His Opinion, But was Pre-
vailed Upon to let it go by Default
After the Opinions of Settle and Reid
Had Been Filed in his Absence as the
Opinion of the Court--Why Did Not
the Injunction, Which Was Sought.
Get to burlington i'm Time ?--An Acc
ton Ia AnnuI the Contract " ould
Probably Have TO go to the Federal
Courts.-The Road Cost So 900 200,
Making the Present Rental OF 7 per
cent. on $4,000 ZOO, Really Only 5
and three-fitths per cent--The PeO.
ple's Profit in "A Rich Property Limi-
ted to this Streak of Lean for 80
| Years.
In last Sundays News AND OBSERVER,
occasion was taken in the midst of some
observations on the recent leasing Of the
| North Carolina Railroad to the Southern
railway, to quote literally from dis
sentiDg opinion of Bynum, j in
which he held that section 10 of the
charter did not Gas now claimed) give
the directors of the North Carolina Rail
road the power to lease the property.
This was then quoted as a dissenting
opinion, but was it dissenting, or rather
was the contrary opinion the opinion
| of the majority of the court as then con-
stituted?
AS bearing upon the history of this
decision, to save space and time, read
the editorial that appeared in the NEWS
of March 80, 1875.
Here it is: (thought to have been
written by Jno. D. Cameron.)
"Only two of them, General D. n.
Hill not inaptly observes, ''Settled" this
guage question; yes it was only two Of
them, so far as they could, that shackled
our people, and left them at the mercy
of an INSCRIPTIONS monopoly in Vir-
ginia.
s'Once more, we repeat the fact, it
was only two of them and, as
Gil Bias says, these two make
a pair, that attempts to despoil US
| and blur the character of our good State:
Settle and Reid. For it is not unknown
| that Pearson prepared an opinion dis
senting from the so called decision OF the
| court, if it has not yet been filed; By
mum, who was, unfortunately, unavoid-
ably absent, declares openly against it.
Rodman, in consequence of holding stock
in the road, as we before have stated, would
not sit on the case. Therefore, it is seen,
it is really under a minority decision
that Buford and his Virginia minions
have been tearing up cur roads and
over riding and setting at defiance the
laws of our Legislature"
That is the editorial, and what next2
The opinion filed as that of the court
touched, it may be said, more co ordi-
nately than collaterally, upon the power
of directors to lease, because in such
power was involved the power sought,
namely, to change the gauge.
The dissenting opinion OF Judge Pear
son was q fact, paper which was seen
and read Of men, and that it was writ
ten will hardly be denied. Moreover, it
cannot be successfully denied that the
opinion of the court was fled in the ab
| sence of Pearson, who later, in the face
Of the political aspirations Of Judge Set
tie, was prevailed upon to let bis opin-
ion go by default. This, in few
words, is the history OF the de
cision which really was the decision
Of only two out Of court OF five, and this
can be substantiated if necessary, by
living witnesses Of what went on in those
days.
| And yet all this is brought in more
parenthetically than otherwise for this
purpose: to show that the pretensions Of
| those rest upon a slim basis who pooh
pooh the idea that the submitting Of a
| question of like character before the
present Supreme Court would not await
! the same decision as was really rendered
! at that time.
And, indeed, if this be but reasoning by
analogy, only, the question would, never
theless, have been put upon its chances,
following the regular course of al in
junction, had not some things happened
that did happen. It may yet make good
reading to know why the person who
was commissioned with the task Of ap-
pearing before those directors that Fri
day night at Burlington, did not thus
appear. If part of the property
objected to the Burlington proceeding,
they had a right to make that objection
known in the legal form Of injunction
proceedings, and wherein lay the trouble
about it all with the person seeking the
remedy Was he not in Raleigh in time
to effect the object in view, and If so,
what became of the time2 1t may come
to pass, as suggested above, that all
these things may be answered by and
bye
At al events, the fact remains that the
people are now deprived of their only
certain chance of having this question,
so vital to them, passed upon by the Su-