The news & observer., 1897-02-07

reHecuOn, proceeded to read from the de-
cissions-cCncluding therefrom that it was
not question of the 80 year feature, but
question of whether the lessee had a
right under the charter to lease which
it had. The reason the lease had been
declared void was because the lessor
had not the right by its charter
to lease for 80 years and that was the
point, and not the question of the validity
of lease of 80 year sper Sc. Mr.. Manning,
per contra, cited case in which he claim
ed it was held that even a lease for
900 years was valid under the specific
conditions Of that case. A Jersey case was
cited-twenty years-which was de-
clared ultra wires simply because the
charter of the lessor was not competent
cover the transaction. A Pullman Pal
ace lease, covering the same point was
cited.
So much as to the power of the North
Carolina Railroad to make the contract
to lease this property for 90 years. If
this was doubted, why not these gentle
men go into the courts of this State to
determine the validity of this lease? The
object of this bill seemed to annul the
lease by destroying the lessee.
That was the only concern he had in
t. AS to the imputation of fraud convey
ed by Judge Avery in the words lit is
said," we would go into any court and
have ventilated the circumstances under
which this contract was made. We have
nothing to conceal. He had memorial
from the directors asking the Legislature
for an investigation, and he wanted it
found out who was meant by "it is said"
hn rsnI ~ 4In
request of one of the Southern Railway
counsel, resanting The words II t;oyerncr
Russell in his special message, denying
the truth of the words, and asking IN
investigation to determine the truth of
the charges. The duplicate memorials
were passed over to Chairman Cook.
Mr.. Manning suggested the probable
injury to Durham, at least, west, to
come from the Seaboards ownership of
the North Carolina Railroad. 1t would
remove the safety of competition which
they now have
Capt. Cook asked about the value of the
stock. Mr.. Manning said that on the
making of the lease the stock had ad-
vanced from 105 to 136.
Col. Sutton asked if ten Der cent
interest wouldn't advance the stock more
1t would, probably, Mr.. Mannig replied,
but very often short term security at a
higher rate sold lower than long term
security at a lower rate.
tue rerhis 11sTfIe Igtse, showing frat the
State got 615 per cent. net and taxes,
Judge Burwell followed: He did not
understand that this was in any sense
litigation, as Judge Avery seemed to
bn cfn Dr ho
Carolina Railroad be threatened or de-
stroyed? He thought either would re-
suit in injury to the State. He appealed
both as Il private stakeholder, and as a
citizen of Charlotte, which owned $780,
900 of the stock, as we'll as bonds of the
Southern Railway. Charlotte had com
petition, which he asked should not be
threatened-which he thought was in
volved in this proposition. Judge Bur-
well went into history of the North
Carolina railway associating it with the
patriotic sentiments of those who had
inaugurated and watched it's growth.
Then he came to the present status which
he gave in figures (which are well known
from frequent publications in the News
and Observer.) Judge Burwell outlined
hypothetical calamities from hypothetical
threatenings OF this status, and the hyp-
othetical blessings that would follow the
adoption OF the course laid down by the
friends Of the lease. Of course, these re-
marks simply included what the present
receipts would do i'm the coming years to-
wards the retirement of construction
bonds and in the matter of refunding the
Fours-and Judge Burwell preferred a
bird in the hand to two in the bush.
Judge Burwell drew now an imaginary
picture of the Seaboard system coming
to offer 10 per cent and proceeded to show
that entity was lacking in the "Sea-
board system" But this aside-should
the Seaboard be allowed to acquire part
of the Southern system any more than
that the reverse should be permitted.
Judge Burwell criticized now the ''li-
cense" feature of the bill and cited cases
to show that such license would be uncon-
stitutional and the Southern Railway
could disregard such legislation. Judge
Burwell cited the case of Logan VS.. the
Railroad decided by Judge Avery, in
which it was declared that the North
Carolina railroad was responsible for in
jury done to person travelling ON it,
and that, therefore, the license feature
would not stand before the courts, but,
Mr.. Busbee suggested, there were other
phases of the provision that would in
jure the railroad-this in answer to
Ghairman Cook who concluded from
Judge BurwelPs remarks that this provi-
sion would be harmless.
Judge Burwell went over the ground
covered by Manning as to the validity
of the 80 year lease-citing one lease
which was made SIN perpetuam."
AS to private stockholders, their rights
were secure; he had mo favors to ask
The time would never come i'm North
Carolina when one stakeholder could
draw dividend and another could not.
The bill enabled anybody who could buy
the railroad for that 100000 to wreck
it. He never heard of ar ailroad wrecked
without mortgage. Say a $10000,000
mortgage were to be issued; at dividend
time, there would be no dividend. This
was possible under the bill. So that he
asked for a provision preventing the
mortgaging of this property: then the
States property was safe, and when it
was safe, the private stakeholder was