The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-16

decided to-day by Judge Collier of the
United States court against the bondhold-
ers and in favors of the present receivers
of the whole system.
The court in denying the application
said:
ga summary of the facts shown in this
hearing is that prior to either of the said
companies going into the hands of re-
ceivers they and other roads, nearly all of
which are also in the hands of receivers of
the courts, constituted a transcontinental
railroad system which had built up for
itself an enormous business, and that the
defendant company, for which receivers
were appointed by this court. was pri-
marily built by the aid of the
other two companies, to form with
them a through line to the Pacific
Coast. 1t is also shown that of itself, and
independent of such connection as has
existed between it and one of these COM
panies-the Atchison-it could not be
maintained as a going concern; that if it
were entirely divorced from the Atchison
it would be entirely worthless unless cap
iral could build other connections for it. 1t
is claimed that the receivers of the sew
eral companies, who are the same persons,
have, since their advent into office, treated
this company most inequitably and that
they have demonstrated most effectively
that their actions, which. it is alleged in
the bill, disqualify them from protecting
adequately the interests of defendant COM
pany, do so disqualify them. They also
claim that this inequitable treatment not
only has the effect of depreciating the
salable value of their securities, but that,
in the meantime, instead of there being an
income from the property, which should
be applied to the frst-mortgage lien, re-
ceivers' certificates are being issued, which
will be a mortgage on the property,
claimed to be a superior incumbrance
to said mortgage lien. They say that in
view of the inadequacy.of the security for
their first mortgage-a matter which APP
pears to be conceded-they are entitled to
tically owners of the property
1.-THE special grievance complained of is
that thereais grossly unfair division of
the earnings under the traffic agreement
which the receivers found in existence at
the time that the property came into their
hands; that the only semblance of iustif-
cation there could eyer have been for such
an inequitable agreement was that the
said two other companies were guarantors
as aforesaid, paying the interest they
agreed.
another grievance, also, is what
is termed the equipment contracts
made between the defendant company
and the Atlantic and Pacific. The equip
ment company is unjustly burdensome;
that as respects this and said traffic agree
ment these receivers have been remiss to a
degree that shows, them utterly incapable
of caring properly for the interests of the
defendant company, it being urged that
this remissness is due to Partially in favor
of said other companies.
.tThis court believes that the time when
for any consideration it will be deferred
from summarily removing, if it has power,
any officer proven to have grossly abused
q trust assigned to him, or who has been
slavishly subservient to influences opposed
to that trust has not arrived.
"While it seems to me that If there is
Justice in these two and other things
complained of, there is somewhat greater
delay than should have occurred; yet I
am convinced that it does not arise from
lack of integrity or competency on the part
of the receivers. It seems so manifest
that the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad
Company can have just treatment &C
corded to it as part OF g great.system that
it will be better for al interests concerned
that L should pause before doing that
which would nominally if not actually
change this condition of affairs.
at is true no man should be considered