The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-09-22
WILL A PREMIUM BE PLACED
UPON ATTEMPTS AT WRECK
ING CORPORATE PROP
ERTX?


their agents, are familiar to the peo-
pie of North Carolina. In az this
country never before was railroad
thrown into the hands of a receiver
upon the application Of a man who
did not own dollar of the stock.
Never before was such property, upon
the application of $3.7O0 stock out of
$1,S00,000, thrown into the hands of
a receiver, over the protest of nearly
all the other stockholders and the
creditors and bondholders. Never be-
fore was such property turned over
to a Receiver. under indictment for a
felony. 1t was only by heroic meas
ures, taken by the Governor, and the
wise supersedeas issued by Chief JUS
tice Fuller, that prevented great in
Jury to that valuable property. The
actions of these two great men. who
had the support of the whole State
except a few interested parties or
folks who were mis!ed by absurd
clamor, saved the property to it's own
ers The action of the Chief Justice
and the Governor alone made the re-
cent lease of the road possible ana
prevented the injury which the re-
ownership would have inflicted.
And yet, after having delayed
lease three months by their unprece-
dented assault unon valuable proper
tv. the attorneys of the men who were
responsible for the trouble. have mad
the effrontery to come into the FED
eraI Court and ask, to be allowed $2I,-
Door For what? 1t cost the State
MANY hundred dollars to defeat their
selfish schemes. which, If successful
would have resulted in serious loss 10
the State and other stockholders.
Are the courts to pay lawyers VINO
would destroy the right of the own
ars of property to control it? Has it
come to this, corporation must pay
the fees of the lawyers VINO wage
inimical proceedings against it? Ii
the receivership had stood, no cor
poration would be safe. if some Judge
could be found who would put 1t INTO
the hands of a receiver without a
hearing upon. the application OF
against the protest of nine-tenths OF
the stockholders. If liberal allow
ances" are granted. it means that
nremium is to be placed upon corpor-
alton wreckage.
The LAWYERS have no doubt earned
a fee. They labored earnestly to
take the property out of the nands Oh
it's owners and get it into the hands OF
their clients. If they had succeeded
they would no doubt have received
"liberal allowances" But the assault
on the railroad, the attack upon the
,.iobt of Droperty owners to control
their own property, the unwarranted
SANDER of the good men in charge OF
the property failed miserably. Nunc
pro tune knocked all three death
blow, and the men responsible IoI
ALL the trouble and evil come forward
now and ask that the Atlantic ana
North Carolina Railroad, pay them
for their attack upon its true inter-
ests. IT is as absurd as if man,
having failed in his attempt To XIII d
neighbor. should ask the neighbor 10
paw for the powder and shot and the
gun used in the attempt to take his
fife.
Why should the revenues of the
Atlantic end North Carolina Railroad
be taken from the owners of the prop
erty to pay fees to lawyers who tried
to wreck that property and put 1t INTO
the hands of receivers? Since When
did it become proper to pay men to
wage war on property rights and
make the parties whose interests
were thereby put in jeopardy pay
the assailants? The lawyers natur-
ally wish large fees. Their clients
ought to pay them we'll, but there is
neither law nor justice to take money
out of the treasury OF the Atlantic and
North Carolina Railroad to pay the
lawyers who were wagipg war against
that corporation.
But, we are told. they base their
claim TO a liberal allowance" upon
the statement that their action Sc
cured a lease of the road. Bless your
life, the only effect their action had
was 10 delay ana feIdru IL tease VI
the road, and on Tuesday they were
fighting that lease. Are they to be
paid the money of other folks for
their policy that tended to Illustrate
the plans of the owners of the prop
erty?
There is no law permitting the
payment of liberal allowances in
this case. There are precedents
where the courts have ordered pay
ments in cases where by litigation
money has been brought into the hands
of the court, and an ingenious attempt
is made to make the claims in this
case analogous to such cases. 1t is in
no sense analogous. There is no
precedent for it. and the analogy will
not hold. The litigation brought re-
tarded and delayed the lease, jeopar-
died the property of the company
and threatened, if successful. the de-
struction of property and corporate
rights It was not brought in good
faith in the interest of bona fide
stockholders, but for other purposes
and by men who were actuated by
selfSb aims Are they to be paid for