Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-11-23
AUTHORITY DENIED
Compressed Air Cannot Be Tested on
the Belt and lexington.
DECISION RENDERED BY JUSTICE COX
Sweeping in Its Consideration Of
All Points at Issue.
THE ROBABLE OUTCOME

OF the Belt and the lexington Railroad
companies to send a car-body to Worcester
Mass, for the purpose of having it equipped
with the mechanism of the Hoadley COM
pressed air motor, in order to test the same
on the lines of the roads in question, with
a view Of equipping them with the system
II the test should be successful. The deci-
sion was sweeping in it's consideration of
the various points at issue in the now ia
nous legal controversy and there was a
quiet but decided sensation in the court
room when Justice Cox. in concluding his
remarks. said that the logical outcome of
the cases. as he viewed them, would be the
discharge of the receiver and a decree OF
the sale Of the roads.
Justice Cox took his seat in general term
court room precisely at 10 o'clock before a
sparse attendance. Mr.. Nathaniel Will
son, Mr.. John B. Larner Mr. Adds r.
browne and Mr.. William F. Mattinsly of
the counsel for the various bondhoiders
VINO opposed the granting of the receivers
apphcation. were present Justice Cox in
qhlred If Mr.. Rideout, Receiver Schoepf's :
attorney, was there, and Mr.. Browne going
IN search of him the court heard several
9nimportant motions from lawyers who
dropped In. Mr.. Rideout appeared in a few
moments accompanied by Receiver Schoepf
and Justice Cox Immediately began to rem
der his decision.
The Causes Considered.
he said the cases Of NJ. Ament & Co.
against the Belt and lexington Railroad d
companies were substantially the same.
Inc complaint in each case recited amounts
or money due for goods furnished to the
CORPORATIONS and prayed for the sale of the
properties to satisfy the claims. He recited
tne 1acts regarding the appointment of q
lecelVe. Tor the companies and the issuance
- fnC
ing expenses of the roads Owing To the
hmiiarity b of the cases he would take the
papers from the Belt case and refer to them
curing MS decision. and 1t would serve to
simplify matters and to save time.
The receiver, he said, had come into cour.
shortly after his appointment and REQUEST
ca permission to enter into a contract wtth
Ierter & Co. of Pittsburg to make test
OF the Belt Line and If such test was
successful to enter into a further con-
tract Tor the purchase of ten Porter motors
20 De regularly run over the line, the pay
ment Tor all of which should be met by the
issuance Of receivers certificates t,non
TINS request being made, said Justice Cox.
the receiver was instructed to call for pro,
posais ior the testing and equipment of
compressed air motors on the line of the
company and. complying with this order.
the receiver had submitted the proposals
mat he had received and had recommend
ed that the Hoadley compressed air motor
with the proposition Of the company own
Ing 1t, which was to make the test for
thirty days free of all cost 10 the railroad
company.
The Plain Intention Described
Justice Cox said that 1t could be plainly
seen that the receiver had asked the au-
thority to make the test with the inten-
ticn If it was successful, to have receivers
certificates issued to pay for the equip
ment Of the road with forty of such mo-
tors, such receivers certificates to be prior
lien on the property of the company. There
was no doubt. said Justice Cox, that re-
ceiVers had been allowed by courts to is
sue certificates that acted as a prior lien
10 the bonds Of the companies, Dut this
mad always been done with the assent Of
the bondholders, and a recent decision of
the Supreme Court, delivered by Justice
Brewer, had declared that such a course
must always be carefully guarded, with
There was no doubt said Justice Cox,
that there must be many features present
to make such course equitable. There
must be something substantial and certain
by the issuance of such receivers certifi-
Gates. In the present case there was none
of this certainty.
PrOblematical Question.
If the test of thirty days which was
asked to be authorized. was successful, the
cost Of the equipment of the entire line
would be entirely problematical. The pub
lie out of curiosity and liking for novelty
might pdtrOnZe the test motor extensively
but there could be no telling what it would
do when the entire equipment was in
operation. The worst feature of all was
that it would be impossible to know how
the motors would meet the competition of
other rapid transit systems. So. even if
the one car asked tor met the expectations
was nothing to show what forty motors
would do. The proposition, as he regarded
it, was simply 10 revolutionize the road 10y
introducing an entirely new system, whose
efficiency TO meet the demands was and
could be only a matter of conjecture, and
he did not believe a court of equity could
properly grant authority for such an in
definite purpose.
Courts and Receivers Certificates.
Continuing, Justice Cox said that in au-
thorizing the issuance of receivers certiti-
Gates courts of equity had always consid-
cred the value of the assests of the COM
panies in the hands of such receivers and
how far it would be affected by the issu-
ance of the certificates. He then enum-
Grated the asseSts of the Belt company
also giving those OF the lexington, and
showed that If receivers certificates should
be issued to equip the road, as proposed,
and the equipment was unsuccessful the
certificates would sweep away the whole of
the assets Of both companies and leave
nothing to meet the bonded debt. He had
very strong reasons, indeed, against grant
ing receivers certificates in the present
cases, even with the assent of the bond
holders 1t had been represented that the
receiver merely asked the authority to
make the test of a single air motor without
expense to the company other than that of
a car Eody, which was to be equipped with
the mechanism and authority to send
which to Worcester, Mass, was requested
But there was no question that IL the test
was successful 1t was the intention to fol-
low it up by an equipment, the expense of
which was to be met by the issuance Of
receivers certificates.
What Congress Intended.
He then proceeded to show that Congress
had specifically indicated in the act of
June 1O 1896, which provided for the test
ing Of compressed air on the lines under
consideration and for other purposes
what course should be pursued in meeting
the expense of equipping the roads with
any new system that might be adopted
In this part of his decision Justice Cox fol-
lowed closely the argument made on this
point by Mr.. A. B. Browne during the hear
ing of the case. The act declared that if
the roads were SO equipped, or in any way