Omaha daily bee., 1895-06-09
One POINT In CONTROVERSY
Principal Question Now Whether the Short
Line Has One or Two Receivers.
STOREY MAKES THE CLOSING ARGUMENT
Claims the appointment OF u Second Re
ceiver Would Defeat the Plans OF
the Trust Company
ion Expected Monday.

SALT LAKE, June S.-(Special Telegram
The three days arguments in the Oregon
Short Line receivership case were continued
before Judge Merritt today and the court an
nounced that a decision would be rendered
Monday morning at $3.50. Those who have
attended the hearing and closely watched the
case were of the opinion that the court would
confirm tine appointment of Egan and also
appoint a joint receiver. This belief was
strengthened this afternoon, when Judge Mer-
ritt called the counsel for both sides before
him in chambers and asked them to agree
upon some one for joint receiver
1t is stated that the attorneys of the Union
Pacific presented the name Of w. II. Ban
croft, now superintendent of the Mountain
division of the Union Pacific. The attorneys
of the American Loan and Trust company alb
soutely refused to consider Bancroft or any
other person the opposition might suggest.
If the court appointed a Union Pacific man
or any one else, as joint receiver they de-
clared their whole purpose in applying for a
separate receivership would be defeated, and
intimated that rather than submit to this
they would withdraw their Application from
the Utah court and refuse to take that part
Of the system. Notwithstanding this threat
1t is believed the court will appoint joint
| receiver and Mr.. Bancroft will be the man.
very interesting feature Of the situation
statehood next winter, the new state must
come under the jurisdiction of either Judge
Gilbert or Judge Sanborn, and their orders
would then be extended over the Utah lines
| 1t is believed that the Trust company will
| be willing to submit to the inconvenience OF
| operating the Short Line system without the
| Utah lines for the few months intervening
rather than accept a joint receivership fol
| the whole system.
ONLY ONE DIFFERENCE.
The case has been argued to point where
| about the only difference between the con
tending parties seems to be whether there
| shall be one or two receivers appointed. The
! Union Pacific still insists on an associated
| receiver, while the loan company maintain!
| that such appointment would defeat tn,
| whole purpose of the separate receivershiI
| because of the brief time which would bt
| given to raise the money to be paid for the
road until July l.
Mr.. Storey, in continuing his argumen
this morning, insisted that the American
| Loan and Trust companys only purpose
| in the litigation was to put man in charge
| of the Short Line who would guard its in
| terest in relation to other roads and no
| be on both sides of the same question. TIL,
| company had only until July l in which t.
| raise over 81 100000 to meet defauted in
| terest on the first mortgages. The purpos,
| of the other side was to secure modification
| of the order the loan company woul(
| have to go back to Judges Gilbert and San
born and cause delay, so there would b.
no time before July / to raise the money
He referred to the condition of the Oregon
Railway and Navigation company, whicl
had shown loss of $750000 and under
new receiver had within five months pait
| the interest and cleared the Indebtedness
| His success was because he was in clos
contact with the patrons of the line. AS t.
the appointment of Mr.. Egan he was a maj
against whom the Union Pacific could fin
no fault and yet they ask for an associat
receiver. To appoint an associate receive
it will be a separation in name and not Il
| fact, and would be extremely unfair.
the court should find Mr.. Egan unsuitabl
| it could remove him or associate anothe
with him. We ask you to take him on tria
and we will abide by the result.
At this point the hearing closed. de