Year: 1879




Company Meeting.


THE REFUSAL OF THE CANAL RING TO ALLOW ANY
OTHER INTEREST TO BIZ REPRESENTED IN TIL
MANAGEMENT.


In connection with what has heretofore been
published In relation to the meeting of the
Chesapeake and Ohio canal company at An.
napolis, It may be stated that the purpose OF the
motion made by Mr.. Miller assistant District
attorney, directing the board to print with It's
annual annual report complete list Of their employees
giving their respective off1ces, residences and
salaries, was to bring out certain facts that
@ seem to need ventilation. Whether these facts
ter @ of pe included IN the rntea report is
the feature viii AFFORD good grounds for
further agitation until the canal ring Is fully
exposed. When Mr; Robinson asked that the
stockholders other than the state OF Maryland
be allowed to name four OF the directors to be
elected, the proposition was met with sneers.
he then proposed that they be allowed three
scorn. He then offered the resolution that
they be allowed two representatives on
the board OF directors; which, after dis
was "a put to s Vote and
GERS and directors gave as reason therefor
that those members selected from Maryland
should be taken from the counties bordering on
OF the state where no particular canal interest
attached, and for the same reason the cities in
the District OF Columbia and Alexandra should
be represented where substantial interests are
10
inquired OF Mr.. Miller whether or not the gen.
tlemen he had nominated had authorized the
use OF their names In this connection. Mr.. MIL
ler's reply was that they had not had time to
adjourn for three weeks to give them time to
see them, but the motion did not prevail.
His purpose was to allow the state Of
opportunity to express their wishes upon this
subject, but the meeting, by the Board OF Public
Works. declined to allow them the opportunity;
Mr af Noel, foly of unit
them. Before the vote was announced, Mr..
Miller, on behalf OF the District of Columbia
hled his written protest against the counting OF
Maryland If this preferred stock were ex-
cluded, the state ticket would have been de-
feated. The purpose OF Mr.. Miller'S protest was
to the right Of the state to Vote this preferred
stock, which will probably come up in the state
courts by quo ,rarranto. 1t Is the purpose Of
fhee the o5 Ene
holders here to hold consultation as to the
manner OF procedure to secure in future fair
pro rata representation In the management OF


The resolution offered by Assistant Solicitor
Robinson was backed up by strong arguments
Dy the mover, by Mr. Miller on behalf OF the
The latter spoke as to what he knew Of the
wishes OF the state OF Virginia and many pri-
Iate stockholders. 1t was contended by them
mat the interests OF the company, OF the state
OF Maryland and of all parties interested, would
be subserved by breaking up the present abSo-
lutte control of the canal by the state OF Mary
land; that good faith required that parties hav-
ing an interest amounting to about 40 per cent.
OF the stock OF the company, should have some
voice In selecting the of1icers who were to bon
trol the canal, and that having aided so largely
In constructing the work, they should not now
be shut out from all voice In Its management
The course pursued by Mr.. Miller meets the
entire appreciation Of the District Commission
ers; who think the course OF Maryland unjust
and imperiOus.