The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1905-03-14
ExPLAINSF0R
CONSOLIDATED
Attorney BuckIand Tells About
Pending Railroad Bill.
TO ACQUIRE LEASED LINES
Should Be No Objection to Condemnation
Of Stock Held BY Persons Hostile to
CompanJs Plans.

Edward G. Buckland. attorney for the
New York, New Haven and Hartford
railroad hss some explanations regarding
the pending railroad measure In the gen
eral assembly. owing TO tho criticism that
has been provoked.
In effect he states that the legislation
is required TO develop the leased prop
should be no objection to the provision
allowing the condemnation OF minority
stock held by parties either antagonistic
or indifferent 10" the company's plans.
The attorney says in part: This
amendment is needed TO enable the New
/ Haven company properly 10 develop the
| various railroad properties and bring
them up TO the standard OF efficiency
which tho growth OF tho population OF
the state and OF its industries demand.
Rhode Island is distinctively "A manu-
featuring state. dependent upon other
sections OF the country for It's raw ma
terials and it's markets II is therefore
10 the interest OF all its citizens that It's
railroads he put into the best possible
| condition 10 carry it's people and its
freight as safely expedtiously and
cheaply as possible.
THE public constantly demand greater
facilities To meet the demand per
manent improvements must be made at
a cost OF large sums OF money. the re-
turns upon which cannot be realized for
years TO come. For example where
single-track roads exist double tracking
Is needed; where there are now double
tracks four tracks should he laid. and
where small terminals were once suffi-
Client large terminals arc demanded by
the travelling public and the shippers
CITES r. T. COMPANY CASE
"Tf the New Haven company invests
large sum of money for the develop
ment OF these properties the benefit will
Of necessity ultimately go TO stockholders
Of other corporations who have put no
money into the enterprise. but insist upon
sitting back. doing nothing and reaping
profits earned by other peoples money
The proposed amendment to this com
pany's charter simply authorizes IL TO
purchase these various properties upon
terms satisfactory TO the majority OF
their owners and with a remedy 10 tho !
minority who are dissatisfied with tho
agreement which the majority have made |
Criticism has been made because the |
act would allow bare majority TO au-
thorize sale. The act was drawn in |
that form because a similar provision |
had already received the sanction OF the |
general assembly. which I'm the act I
creating recently incorporated company /
authorized N 10 acquire the property and |
franchises ~ any gas company electric |
lighting company or street railway com \
pany then or thereafter Incorporated TN |
the state upon the authorization OF a
majority OF tho stockholders Of such com
pauy voting 10 sell.
This company desires oily reasonable
I,1a
the stockholders Of its leased roads who
may be willing. to cooperate In its plans
10 develop the railroads OF the state; and
II n majority authorization seems unfair
the company would Willingly accept an
amendment making vote OF two thirds
In interest OF Its stockholders a condition
precedent TO sale
But this company does feel that II
majority Of railroad com
pany deem II for the interest Of tho com
pany and ~ the public that the property
be sold, small minority should not he
permitted 10 block tho sale.
TO FINANCE IMPROVEMENTS
Objection is made that the act might
4 MINORITY -Stnckholder to change
an investment against his will The act
would do that and properly too The
settled policy Of the law Of the state now
Is 10 enable majority Of 2 corpora ation
10 decide the destiny Of the corpora ton.
and. II II decides 70 wind up the cor
poration. compel q minority stockholder
10 change his investment. Chapter SOS
n the public laws passed in 1929 au-
horizes dissolution of corpora tions upon
vote of a majority OF It's stockholders
Rut this law does not apply TO railroad
corporations. for the reason that they
'erve the public and therefore ought not
n discontinue the public service AT will /
"A stockholdeT In a public service cor
,oration. while he owns a share IN n
company which cannot a the will Of its
tockholders be dissolved. ought not. on
he plea of injustice Of being Obliged
o change his investment be allowed 10 7
'ock corporate consolidation which ,
air majority Of his associates deem ad- :
lisa bic, and which would result in a q
'enefit TO the public service .
"lf an objecting minority stockholder is =
ssured Of the full value Of his stock.
= is provided In this proposed amend
nent. IL would seem that as member
Z a corporation whose object is TO serve
he public he has received all that in
ustice he Is entitled to-
1T Is evident that this company can
nance the needed improvements and
etterments at a less cost when the leased '
mes have become merged than n could
IL should undertake To finance the cos,
n the credit Of the lines alone. or than
the minority stockholders of the leased v
mes should make the undertaking them
elves"
-----.----------