The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-03-27

us, that IS to the attorneys who drew the
bill at the time, was to appeal to court
of competent jurisdiction for a relief that
could not be obtained as 1T seemed in
any other way. The receivership of the
railroad was a subsidiary matter. The
prime object of the bill being to secure
a lease and to secure it as it was thought
in a proper legal and iustifiable manner
From all that transDired in the several
conferences at which Capt Day, Capt
McBee, Mr.. Finch and myself We're pres
ent, will say that | did not think that
| it was the purpose of either Capt. Nc
Bee or Mr.. Finch to deDreciate the prop
erty of the Atlantic and North Carolina
Railroad or to iniure any individual or
corporation. Nothing was said looking in
a remote degree to that end the receiver
ship, if receiver should be appointed
was solely for the purpose of taking the
road in hand and running it according to
business methods and principals and by
most competent and skilled railroad
man, to be appointed by the court. The
| physical condition of the road as pointed
out by Mr.. James A. Bryan IN his re-
port to the stockholders in the 1903 meet
ing if true, and | do not doubt ITS truth
and the deplorable want of rolling stock
which as he describes it placed the road
| at the mercy of its competitors, who were
furnishing the rolling stock, the light
character of the rails on a large portion
of the road. which Mr. Bryan stated rem
dered the running of trans dangerous to
life and property and which might sub
ject 1t any day to large damages by rea-
son OF a wreck. presented case as we
all thought which would Justify a court
Of equity in placing the road in the hands
of a receiver until it could be leased,
either through the instrumentaity of the
court. or as it was thought would be the
probable result a lease by the stockhOld-
ers and the State upon terms which would
be satisfactory to them both.
@. Did you so advise your client. Mr..
Firch? A. This was matter Of discus
sion and matter upon which we all
agreed at these conferences. ! say there
fore that | believe there was no purpose
or intention. on the part of either of
these gentlemen in having bill d1aughted
for the purpose of presenting to court IN
order to obtain the relief to which we
thought they were entitled upon the facts
that they could prove to commit any
offence against the State Of North Caro-
lima, or to in an unlawful manner ac-
compllSh an end which was lawful IN IT.
self The suggestion that a temporary
receiver should be applied for with an
order to show cause was not discussed
until near the end of the conference, AS
have said before in my testimony given
in at the trial of Capt. McBee. | thought,
and so expressed myself, that it would
be far better to apply for an order to
show cause and give notice to the defend
ant before asking that a receiver should
be appointed. ] advised this course be-
cause ! thought that the parties ought
to have notice. that it was the most
prudent course, and one to which there
could be no objection. | do not mean to
say that l do not think there was suff-
cient facts appearing in the bill of com
plant to justify a court in granting
temporary receivershp, by an ex parte
order. My advice was not taken upon this
point.
You were not overruled by Mr.. Finch?
No sir. do not think that Mr.. Finch
expressed himself either way. l am quite
sure that Mr.. Finch did not insist upon
an immediate application. Mr.. Finch was
in Norfolk with us.