OCR Text |
Show RECEIVERSHIP BP THE D, & R. G, SUBJECT BP DISCUSSION The effort of creditors to place the Denver & Rio Grande in the hands of a receiver, now disturbing the courts of New York and Colorado, has afforded af-forded local railroad men an opportunity oppor-tunity to indulge in a new and spirited spirit-ed maze of speculation. Since the Denver &. Rio Grande, with all other American railroads, has been placed under federal control by reason of executive proclamation, can a receivership legally apply in that the petition, if allowed, merely would place the company under the jurisdiction jurisdic-tion of a federal court, which, in reality, real-ity, is but another department of the government? The argument, in spots, has grown warm. One side of the controversy, which probably may properly be termed the affirmative, declares that the president's presi-dent's proclamation only took supervisory super-visory control over the operating departments de-partments of the railroads. In effect, it simply pooled the several hundred railroad companies of the nation under un-der one supervisory head the director-general. It took no cognizance of the indebtedness or any character of liapuity wun wnicn a company may be 'burdened, the main idea being to keep the rolling stock in motion. Contrary to tills opinion, other railroad rail-road men insist that the government order, in taking supervisory control, assumed complete jurisdiction evert to the minor detail of firing a section hand, figuring the cost of operation nnd the dividends, if any, and appropriating appro-priating money' for such lines as may be in need of funds to rehabilitate the track or other maintenance. They hold that an indebtedness is a part of the program of the government's supervision super-vision and that to bring the road to its fullest efficiency, the creditors of the company must be satisfied. The situation is unique in the history his-tory of American jurisprudence and railroading and the court before whom tho application for a receivership will be heard, will be compelled to arrive at an original conclusion another unique situation in American courts in that there will be no musty toincs and precedents to consult. Champions of both sides of the receivership problem prob-lem agree that the latter eventuality, wherein the court must depend upon his own ideas instead of tho Ideas of some long-since-dead jurist, will bo worth the cost of the application, in that It will tend to help the courts, tlWMIIBamjl "-II II -1.1. i TTTT by giving them the precedent of "think a little for thomselves" and arriving at modern decisions along modern reasoning rea-soning and mental processes. |