Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-11-18
Arguments Over the Issue of Eek
ington Receivers Certificates.
VALUE OF AIR MOTOR TESTS
Stockholders and BondhoIders Take
Different Sides.
L ID E TW WO ROA DIS

Inc nearing of the arguments for a,5
against the granting of the request of Re-
cei'er w. Kelsey Schoepf to be given au-
| thority to make a test of the Hoa6ly-
! Knight motor on the lines of the Eckington
| railway was continued before Justice Coy
| this morning.
Mr.. John Ridout, attorney for the re-
ceiver, proceeded with the argument he
began yesterday afternoon He said that
| there had been a great many unnecessary
| matters injected into the case and a great
| many accusations had been made which
had no other foundation than the imagina-
| tlohs OF the gentlemen who had framed
,he answer 10 the receivers report and
| the Dill OF complaint, which was the be-
| ginning OF the cause. He rejected all the
arguments OF Messrs. Wilson and Mating
| ly, and declared that there could he no
| sale of the property as they desired within
less than sixty days. even If a decree for
Its sale was made at once. Such a sale
would only protect the bon5holders. The
| stockholders would be wiped out of ex-
| istence. The test of the Hoadly- X might
motor would be beneficial to the road in
q number of substantial ways, declared
Mr: RidoCt- 1t was simple proposition.
| which involved no expense, and the in
| creased earnings of the single test car
| would, he claimed, pay the wages of the
crew. He declared that the successful
running of such a car over the lines of
the company would add from - to 80 per
cent TO the value of the property, If IL
were ordered to be sold afterward.
Mr.. Ridout went on to recite the history
of local railroads and rapid transit. Re-
1errlng TO the metropolitan road, although
| he did not directly name IL, he said il had
| been subjected to yituperation by the pub
lie and the newspapers because ii did not
introduce rapid transit. ard Il had only re-
| Gently put in a system which seemed to
meet the requirements so far. The loss of
revenue in the lexington road, he de-
clared, was due entirely to The Introduction
Of rapid transit on the Capital Traction and
| the Metropolitan roads, and net 10 the
management, as has been SO generally al
! legged. and was just the same loss that a
grocer in out-of-the-way neighl,orhood
would feel if big department store enter
ed into competition and gave better serv-
| ice. The request of the receiver said Mr..
| Ridout, if granted, did not place any obli-
CATION on the company for the equipping
| of the lines. 1t was merely asked to be
! given authority to make a test. and at the
| end of that test no further acton could be
taken except through the decree of the
| court Neither the bondholders or any one
| else could be subjected TO any loss what
| ever by the granting of the authority ask
| ed. but the sale requested by the represen-
| tatives of the boz DIS would subject the
stockholders to the loss of TO less than
! 100000.
| Even IL the test were successful and the
matter of equipping the road with the sys-
| tenn were considered, said Mr. Ridout, the
cost of such equipment would be only, in
round figures, for all and every expense,
about $sOo,0oo, or about half as much as
1 the underground electric system would
cost.
Speaking of the act of Congress Of June
| 10, which provided that a compressed air
system should be tested on the line, Mr..
Ridout said IL was evident that Congress
| desired to have the new system of street
car propulsion tried and had taken that
course to bring ii about. The paragraph
6erl ri ms ha & not ha
used after December 10, this year, was
| evidently put in by persons opposed TO the
road. as it was not in keeping with the
context of the bill, as the provisions OF the
latter could not have been carried out In
| the period mentioned, even If everything
| had been most favorable.
MIR. Ridout, continuing, said it was not
wise for the court to take the hasty action
| asked by the other side. There should he
| every opportunity given for the saving of
| the property of the company and the in
| vestments of the stockholders Ii was alb
| surd to think that the statements of the
I other side regarding the alleged intention
of the Philadelphia parties to ruin the road
| were based on anything like facts " hen the
| attempt was now being made to rehabli-
tate the property and make il remunerative
| to all persons interested in ii.
| Stockholders Present "a Petition.
Mr. w. r. Marbury followed and said the
| case was one of those which evidently gave
| different impression when looked at from
| different points of view. He would like to
present the views of those who looked at 1t
| from the point of view Of the stockholders.
| He said he represented the Columbia and
/ Maryland railway, which owned l0.0co. or
| the majority, of the shares of the stock of
| the road, and number of smaller stock
\ holders, who owned altogether go shares,
| who We're desirous that the request of the
| receiver to make the trial he granted. He
| then read a petition addressed to the Su-
| preme Court of the District. praying that
| the request be granted. This was signed
! by John F. Shea, $50 shares; III. w. Scam
| nell, 45; ID. W. McGrath, ~; X. s. Scam
nell, 40; VIM. G. Bond 119; Mary A. Nor
ris. 8; Charles A. Shields. IL; Frank T
| Rawlings, 81; Henry A. Willard. 106: Henry
X. Willard, 40: Engene Morgan, 40: John
G. Barthel. 2G; Frank III. Pelouze. II; the
| Catholic University. by p. J. Garrigan.
/ acting rector, 81; Michael Connor, I6. and
| Laurence Mangan, 20.
There were only 1900 shares in all, SO
he represented nearly 12.oo0. a very large
majority. 1t was not their desire TO cause
the bondholders the loss of a cent. There
was no request to issue receivers certifi-
Gates TO equip the road, the other side
seemed to think but merely a request 10
| test a system which might, and probably
would. change the entire financial condition
| of the property.
Receivers md Their Duties.
He went into the subject of the appoint
ment of receivers generally and declared
| that they were created by courts only
when it was desired to conserve the value
of properties that were threatened with
sacrifice 10y the demands of obdurate credi-
| tors. He alluded to the appointment of
receivers for the Baltimore and Ohio and
the issuance of receivers certificates fol-
| lowing that action, and endeavored to show
| that as in that case the receivers were act
| ing to protect the best interests of the
company, its bondholders and it's stock
| holders so Receiver Schoepf was endeavor-
| ing ID do the same in the present instance.
He ridiculed the idea that Elkins, Widener
and Dolan were trying to wreck the road.
1t was true they were interested I'm the
| company owning the Hoadley motor, and IT
| was no doubt true that such interest led
1 the company TO offer such reasonable
| terms for the test, and. If necessary, for
| equpping the line. 1t was the first time
| said MIR. Marbury, that he had heard of
| men being abused for exercising their in
| fiuence for good. 1t was perfectly plain, he
declared, that If Elkins, Widener and Do
| Ian wanted to buy the road at such
| sacrifice they would not make any
effort to improve # by assisting in the in
| production rapid transit upon IL, but
would let IT run along I'm the same way as
! at present, and eventually get IL at a great