Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-06-16
Fifty Years Ago
In The Star

I'VE are glad to learn" says The
Star of June 9, 1879, "by the reported
-, proceedings OF the an
u q " Oanal nual meeting Of the
Troubles. Chesapeake & Ohio
Canal Co. that the
authorities of the District and Of the
United States have at last recognized
the necessity Of looking after the large
interests held by them In the canal.
The United States originally subscribed
one million dollars; the City Of Wash
inRton one million; the City Of George
town, the City Of Alexandria and the
State Of Virginia each a quarter OF q
million. Besides these large corporate
subscriptions, citizens Of Washington
subscribed and paid for stock to the
amount Of $185,000; Of Georgetown,
sie6, 900; Of Alexandra, $35, 600, and
Of Virginia, $4,000. Outside OF the
State of Maryland the stock Of the
canal company is held to the amount
of about 5000, 900. The total stock is
about So 900. In addition to this,
the District Of Columbia holds $4,000
of the preferred bonds of the company,
and citizens Of the District and Of Vir-
ginia hold, IL Is believed, major por-
ton of the $1,7oo,00 preferred bonds
issued by the company In 1846-47 to
Cumberland, where 1t would be made
available for the coal trade Of Western
Maryland.
1.-THE eastern terminus of the canal
Is at Georgetown, where 1t also con-
meets with the Alexandria Canal, a work
costing at least 81 ,000, 900. The simple
statement Of these well known facts
shows that this District and the ada
cent State Of Virginia 10 large extent
created this great work. and In 1886.
when its supporters almost despaired
of It's completion, came to Its rescue
and saved 1t. It also shows that the
material interest of the people of the
District are more largely concerned in
the good management, OF this canal
than any other community, except, per-
haps, Western Maryland. And yet 1t is
q fact that for many years these large
interests have had no voice whatever
In the selection of the officers who have
controlled the canal. The State OF
Maryland, claiming to hold majority
of the stock by its Board of Public
works. has selected the president and
the board Of directors with entire dis
regard to the wishes and interests of
the other stockholders. At the late
meeting all that was asked OF the
Board Of Public Works was to allow the
other stockholders to select two out of
the seven who are to manage the work
for the ensuing year, and this was re-
fused Can 1t be supposed that these
other stockholders would have con-
tributed so literally Of their means II
they had expected that when the work
was completed they were TO be entirely
unrepresented in its management? Does
not good faith and fair dealing require
that they should have at least suf-
ficient representation in the board to
enable them to have an intelligent and
yirilant supervision Of its action? II
any good Is to be accomplished they
could aid 1t, II so disposed, and could
not prevent it II they wished.
"It is true that II the directors Sc
promote that interest at the expense of
the stockholders, or II they have any
personal or political object to accom-
plish by means of their control of the
canal, the presence of even two intelli-
gent and honest business men would
materially interiors with such designs.
But 1t Is only In these cases that the
poor privilege Of selecting so small al
minority Of the directors could be OBJ
jectionable TO the representatives OF the
State.
Experiences has shown that wherever
q great public work of this kind is
under control OF q State or Of the
United States, 1t has been badly man
aged and used for bad purposes. No
exception to this rule can be named
So well persuaded Of this fact were the
people Of Virginia that, although that
State owned three-fifths of all the
stock In most Of her railroads, she never
claimed TO have q majority Of the di-
rectors Satisfied that business men In
terested Ina the MANAGEMENT Of their
own property would always be more