The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1909-07-15
had agreed to abandon the project.


A copy of these resolutions were or
dered sent to Mr. Drake with the re-
quest for immediate acceptance. In the
first place it has not been shown wheth-
er Mr. Drake received the copy of these
resolutions, and secondly, if he had why
would he accept a modified form of
agreement?
Then comes C. P. Munday, treasurer
of the Shreveport and Northeastern
Railway, who was requested by Mr..
Clingman to furnish to Messrs. Pugh,
Thigpen & Herold data covering the
ratification of the sale of the right of
way, etc, as made by Mr.. Clingman.
These attorneys knew nothing of the
sale made January 1, 1909, by Mr..
Clingman to Drake, and being anxious
to secure deed to all the right of way,
ETC., of the Shreveport and Northeast
ern Railway, prepared deed which
they thought would be acceptable to
Mr.. Drake and which DR.. Munday
stated to them was the ratification of
the board of directors of the Shreveport
Sad Northeastern Railway. This deed
was signed by the officials of the
Shreveport and Northeastew Railway,
and Mr. Thigpen stated he thought it
would be signed by Mr.. Drake, and the
deed was executed with the signatures
of the officials of the Shreveport and
Northeastern Railway before Mr.. Thig-
pen as notary public. This was done
July Id, the day of the trial, and DR..
Munday asked permission of Mr.. Thig-
pen the privilege of placing this deed in
court at the trial. 1t was developed
during the trial and was shown by Mr..
Thigpen, who being on the stand, that
DR.. Munday had added eight words to
this which had been prepared by him
and of which he had no knowledge until
it was shown in court.
In the resolutions and in this deed
prepared by Mr.. Thigpen the main point
of the abandoning of the project was
omitted.
This in brief is the status of the
Shreveport and Northeastern, as out,
lined in the evidence submitted and is
given publicity as information to the
general reader and with no intention
of jeopardizing whatever interest OF
claim the defendant may have. q
This is more than an ordinary suit.
II appears personal in one sense, but
it is broad and widespread in its ap-
plication
Under the process of legal procedure
it is being attempted to make this issue
personal in which one single individual
is concerned, and who is seeking tt
have reimbursed the tax he has paid a:
| a bonus.
The whole issue is presented in thu
simple query: Has the Shreveport ane
Northeastern Railway complied with it
agreement, and has it fulfilled its con
tract?
It would seem from its own admis
sions that it has not; that it is simply
indulging in some fancied anticipation
of something turning up in its favor
In this contest the whole City o
Shreveport, of Caddo Parish and thi
section of the State have vital con
cern. To the State Fair Association
there had been assigned $4,000 of tn
$4,000 collected for this special tax
This the CIingman Company is tryin
to secure or to tie up so that it can nc
be used by the State Fair Association
| for contemplated Improvements.
If, as it appears, that the Shrevepor
land Northeastern has failed in its cor
tract and agreement, it can have no bel
tier standing than an individual who ha
failed III his agreement and contract
| What is the purpose of the defend
ants?
| Is it delay?
| What can they expect from delay?
| In this suit the plaintiff is represente
| by Blanchard, Barret & Sruith, and tt
defendants by Hall & Jack.
L