The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1906-03-16
FRIDAY, MARCH IS, 1906.
THE ATLANTIC ROAD LEASE.

If the lease of the Atlantic and
North Carolina railroad should be set
aside by the courts what is going 70
be done about the three hundred thou
sand dollars the lessees have spent in
improving the property since it passed
tempting to have the lease annulled
surely do lot propose that the STATE
and the private stockholders shall take
advantage of the betterment Of The
railroad by the lessees and attemp. to
confiscate that much of their proper
ty. if the courts would allow such in
justice to be done. The plaintiff in
this suit must certainly contemplate
the reimbursement of the lessees and
their assigns Of all expenditures fol
the improvement of the road.
Then the question arises how is it
to be paid and by whom? The state
cannot pay the necessary sum out OF
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?
t. it pays it at all it will have to be
done in this way. Are these private
stockholders who are contending for
the setting aside of the lease will
ing to come forward and pay their
proportionate part of the three hun
dred thousand dollars that will be due
the lessees on the canceling 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 les
sees. Surely they wont expect the State
to bear the full burden of the conse-
quences of setting aside the lease.
Their contention has been, e since
negotiations were begun for the lease
of the property hat the road was for
the benefit Of the private stockholders
and the other people living in the con-
tiguous territory; that in any transac-
tons connected with the road their
interests rather than the general inter
ests of the state and of the people
thereof should be looked after. 1t is
a poor rule that does not work both
ways. II the road is to be run exclu-
sively 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 op-
Grated in the interest of those people
and a few newspaper men and politi-
cians-friends of the state administra-
ton of the time being-in other parts
of the state.
The state owns two thirds of the
stock of this road and under the lease
it is getting dividends regularly on
that stock. If the lease is set aside
and the old manner of managing the
property is restored the state will no,
only lose that income, but will have
10 pay interest on a bona issue made
necessary by resembling the contract
with the lessees. 1t is to the interest
OF the state that the lease should re-
main. All this is to be changed because
a few stockholders are not satisfied
with their altered relations to the
road. They are getting dividends
which they did not get before, but il
seems that under the old system these
few men had privileges under the po-
litical management Of the road which
they are not willing to exchange foI
regularly paid dividends.
These questions. though, cannot at
feet the case now that it is in The
courts. There are No facts 10 be
ssttled. They are established OF
record, The case will turn upon
the application of the law to the
existing state of facts. Should the
lease be annulled the private stock
holders should be made to GEAR
their part of the 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 do equity, the law says.