The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-02-16
THE TALK OF STRIPPING. /"

There is not line in the old lease per
uniting the Southern railroad ''to strip
the road" as their henchmen say the
Southern would do if the lease should be
amnulled. This is "bugabOo' that
wouldn't scare a six-year old child in
the night
Here is a view Of this foolish stripping
argument that an able gentleman pre-
sents in a private letter that is worthy
of consideration:
II have been reading over the recent
lease to-day, and would suggest that you
compare the two leases and note the diff
ference in them. l wish to call your atten-
ton to the fact that the old lease provided,
at the expiration of it's time, that all Inn
proyementS ON the road were to remain
as the property of the North Carolina
Railroad, and that all engines, rolling
stock, etc, be returned in as good condi-
ton as when leased. Now | contend that
in case all Of this rolling stock ON the road
and machinery which was in the Burling-
ton shops was not returned in the same
condition as at the time tie property was
leased, that it was the duty of the Rich
mond & Danville road, or its assignees,
TO pay its value in cash. But, on the
contrary, the new lease says that at the
expiration Of it's time, they will be re-
sponsible for all property turned over to
them by the Richmond & Danville Rail
road. There is to-day none of the engines
or cars that / know of on the line of the
road; simply an inventory of them, which
you find in Major Wilson's report
of 1896. In other words, if the directors
had been ordinary statesmen" they GER
tainly would not have allowed the new
lessee to come in and take advantage of
property which the old lessee had exhaust
ed or worn out, and for which they would
be due the company at the expiration of
the first lease, and which should have
been paid before the transfer to the new
lessee; and, as a matter of fact, they are
now beaten out of their entire rolling
stock and machinery, which amounted to
from 100000 to $150,000.
ITO the ordinary countryman's mind, it
appears to me, the idea would be pre-
scented thus: Suppose rent you my farm
for a term Of years, which has in stock
twenty-five mules and farming nipple
ments, and it is stipulated in the agree
ment that at the expiration OF the lease,
you are to return to me the mules and
implements in the same condition, or their
equivalent before the lease expires, the
mules are dead, and the implements worn
out. Would it not be unbusinesslike for
Sid. Alexander, my "overseer," to fail to
require you TO pay me for my stock and
tools at the expiration of the lease, or at
any time during the period that the farm
was, by agreement with you (the original
lessee, sold to another party?
Now / claim that it was impossible for
the directors to do justice to the State
of North Carolina until they had made
settlement in full with the original
lessee, or their assignees, before they un-
dertook to lease to any one else; and, if
] understand the situation at all, the
State of North Carolina has simply been
defrauded ont Of their rolling stock and
machinery, because none Of it, to my
mind, has been turned over to the South
ern Railway, as it is worn out. Mark
yOui The language Of the last lease to
the Southern Railway is that they will
only be responsible for the property ac
tually delivered to them. The State of
North Carolina is entitled to payment
for her rolling stock and machinery be-
fore the directors could think for a min
ute of leasing the property to any one
else"