The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-02-03
RYAN WANTED HIS
RIGHTS DEFINED
CONTINUED from First Page.o

charter of the Seaboard and Roanoke
WAS granted In two States yet each State
has the power TO amend in certain iil-
stances. and such action does not require
the concurrent acton.
The Scaboard and Roanoke in Virginia
is d Virginia corporation. and in North
Carolina u North Carolina corporations
asuf who would dispute that one long
road is better than Two short roads"
JUDGE LEWIS CONTENTION.
Judge l.. l.. Lewis followed Judge Cross.
III The rule said Judge Lewis is wei
founded, and ii certainly is. that an
Injunction VIII not be granted unless the
party appiying for it is entitled 70 it, and
no other remedy is 10 be obtained the
complainant is not entitled to the restrain
ing order asked for
Judge Lewis also commended that The
cciistftutionality and validity of the act of
the Legislature IN amending the charter
Was the only matter brought out in the
supplemental bill. he claimed that il was
constt utional and the Legislature POSSESS
ed the reserve power 40 amend charters
granted by the State. He insisted that the
charter of the Richmond, Petersburg and
Carolina railroad was constitutional and
that the Legislature has The right 10
,amend the charter of the Scaboard and
Roanoke and TO authorize it to consolidate
with other companies.
Lewis, and closed the argument for
Ryan. The question is whether the Sea-
board and Roanoke had the legal power
TO consolidate or be marged with any
other company. Mr.. Carter contended
that the Seaboard and Roanoke had no
power 10 consolidate under the charter
granted by the State of North Carolina,
as that State failed to reserve the right
TO modify or change the charter granted
by 1t.
We are here TO determine said Mr.
Carter. Whether there is legislative au-
tholity, no matter from whence il enla-s
mates. for the consolidation of the Sea-
board and Roanoke railroad with other
roads.
Il say that there is no charter power
under the grant of the State of North
Carolina TO all Nv The Seaboard and Roa-
tnose to consolidate with any other road.
Mr.. Carter bitterly attacked the scheme
proposed Tor the compensation of the mi
Sority stockholders, putting forth the
arEuunent that any compensation that the
CONSOLIDATED company might be liable for
would be made secondary TO the salts
Tying of the liens and mortgages the con-
solidnted company had issued.
Mr.. Carter also claimed that If the pro-
visions for the compensation of the dis
eatis.ied stockholders We're followed out.
tho Federal courts would be deprived of
their jurisdiction in the matter. Mr.. Car
ter commended that they We're entitled to
nm injunction: that the case was a unique
one Eve want to know whether there Is
any legal authority Tor the consolidation
THE only thing that has been filed in
answer to our bill is The statement that
the stockholders meeting has not yet
been held.
..The court has now the right TO decide
tho matter. and II there exists no legal
right for the consolidation, then prohibit
II. We ask for an Injunction. we ask
that our rights be defined. II is the duty
Of your Honor TO end this controversy on
tfs legal questions and issues that have
bssa tairly mst. sas..#s