The gold leaf., 1906-03-22
ATLANTIC RAILROAD LEASE.
the Attempt to Annul States
Contract Should be Successful.
Wilmington Messenger.

Wilmington Messenger.
If the lease of the Atlantic and
North Carolina railroad should be
set aside by the courts what is going
to be done about the three hundred
thousand dollars the lessees have
spent i'll improving the property
since it passed into their hands?
Those who are attempting to have
the lease annulled surely do not pro-
pose that the State and private
stockholders shall take advantage
OF the betterment of the railroad by
the lessees and attempt to confiscate
that much of their property, ii the
courts would allow such injustice to
be done. The plaintiff in this suit
must certainly contemplate the re-
inbrrsement of the lessees and their
assigns of all the expenditures for
the improvement of the road
Then the question arises how is it
to bespaid and by whom? The State
cannot pay the necessary sum out OF
the treasury. Are the people of the
whole State to be taxed in order that
the few private stockholders may get
the property back in their hands?
Must the State issue bonds to pay
the debt? Ii it pays it all it will
have to be done i'll this way. Are
these private stockholders who are
contending for the setting aside of
the lease willing to come forward
/ and pay their proportionate part of
three hundred thousand dollars that
will be due the lessees Oh the cancel
ing of the lease? They own one
third of the stock and therefore,
should be willing to pay out OF their
pockets one third of the sum found
to be due the lessecs. Surely they
won't expect the State to bear the
full burden of the consequences of
setting aside the lease?
Their contention has been, ever
since the negotiations were begun for
the lease of the property that the
road was for the benefit of the pri-
vate stockholders and the other pco-
pie living in the contiguous territory;
that in any transactions connected
with the road their interests rather
than the general interests OF the
State and of the people thereof
should be looked after. 1t is q poor
rule that does not work both ways.
If the road is to be run exclusively in
their interests they should bear their
propOrtiOnate part, at least, of what
it will cost to put it back under the
old regime when it was operated i'm
the interest of those people and a few
newspaper men and politicians
friends of the State administration
OF the time being-in other parts oi
the State.
The State owns twO-thirds Ct the
stock of this road and under the
lease it is getting dividends regular
ly on that stock. If the lease is set
aside and the old manner of manag-
ing the property is srestored the State
will not only lose that income, but
will have to pay interest OH Il bond
issue made necessary by resembling
the contract with the lessees. 1t is
to the interest af the State that the
lease should remain. All this to be
changed because a few stockholders
are not satisfied with their altered
relations to the road. They are get
ting dividends which they did not
get before, but it seems that under
the old system the few men had priv
ileges under the political manage
.nent OF the road which they are not
willing to exchange for regularly
| paid dividends.
| These questions, though, cannot
affect the case now as it is in the
courts. There are 70 facts to be
settled. They are established of rec.
ord. The case will turn upon the ap.
plication of the law to the exisistine
state of facts. Should the lease be
'innulled the private stockholders
should be made to bear their part o.
rhe resulting cost to the State and
from the nature OF the case we should
think the court would have the right
to impose such conditions as it sees
fit upon those who are attempting
to have the lease set aside. Those
who would have equity must dc
equity themselves, the law says