|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1572 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Apl. 3,
davit of the President of the Company. I was led to this
concluiion, not only by the language of the Act itself, but by
obvious considerations that there was no reason why different
modes of proof should be required in the two cases, they being
both alike required for the protection of the State under the
same legislative provisions.
In the case of the Southern Maryland Railroad Company,
the affidavits which were preserved to me to establish the fact
that other sufficient subscriptions had been made, was under
the oath of the President, the Treasurer and Secretary of said
Company. Having accepted these affidavits as I was bound
to do, I saw no reason for requiring other than the oaths of
the same officers to the fact of the subscription having been
paid in. The form of the affidavit as to such subscription,
which was presented to me, was not satisfactory to me, be-
cause it did not state the amount which had been paid in,
nor that the payments had been in actual money. Upon my
stating this objection, the officers of the Company informed
me that $500,000 had been actually paid in, in money, and
that if I preferred it I might alter the affidavit so as to make
it contain an averment of those facts. I therefore prepared
the second affidavit, which was sworn to accordingly, and
which was entirely satisfactory to me. It is in this way the
two affidavits appear in the transaction ; of course, if I had
had any suspicion of the integrity of the parties making the
first affidavit, the fact of their willingness to make the second
would not hare induced me to accept it, but I had no reason
to doubt their good faith in making both.
Having accepted these affidavits as sufficient, I informed
the President that as the Baltimore and Drum Point Rail-
read Company had received in 1872, the State's prior sub-
scription for Calvert county, amounting to $152.000, and
recently notified the Treasury Department that said Balti-
more and Drum Point Railroad Company desired during the
year 1873, the whole amount due, aod as the Act of 1868,
chap. 454, limited the payment during any one year, to the
sum of $125.000, it had been deemed just by the Comptroller
and myself to divide the last named sum between the two Com-
ponies, pro rata. (See letter on file in office of State Treas-
urer).
It is proper here to observe, that the fact of there being
money in the Treasury, by no means establishes the other
fact that such money is at the disposal of the Treasury De-
partment in the payment of ordinary appropriations.
There are certain fixed and periodical demands to which
all others must be postponed, such, for instance, as the ap-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
