5/13/73

Meeting of incorporators held at Galveston yesterday (9 named individuals) urging legislative approval of Charter.

6/1/73

Charter having been approved, text printed in full.

6/20/73

Commissioners named yesterday.

6/25/73

Proposed railroad will enable shipment of New Mexico ores to Liverpool at a savings of about $12 a ton.

7/3/73

Millions of tons of silver and copper ore will be shipped to Europe for cheap reduction.  “Immense quantities of Colorado ores are shipped to Swan Sea, Wales for reduction” (“gold, silver, copper and purites intimately allied”).  At present shipped via Kansas Pacific Railway to New York.

7/12/73

Last of $200,00 required for initial subscription was taken yesterday.

11/28/73

Officers elected yesterday.  President:  Albert Somerville, Vice-President: M. Kopperl, Treasurer: George Sealy.

3/3/74

Report on steamships in port.

4/17/74

Report on a special meeting of the County Court, convened to consider a petition for an election to determine if the county should subscribe to $500,000 in company stock.  Comments extensively on remark by Justice Pentony that he was “opposed both to subsidies and subscriptions for the benefit of railroad speculators.”  …  “Columbus was a speculator …  The Texas colonists, headed by Austin … were speculators.  The civilized world owes its proudest attainments to speculation.  Without speculative genius and speculative energy the future would be a blank and civilization would languish and wither, and shrivel into the inertness and insignificance of the deadest thing on the Dead Sea shore.  Nevertheless, an undefined odium attaches to the words speculator and speculation, when used in certain connections … hence, it is quite the fashion for some people, whenever, for any reason, they are opposed to any enterprise, to call it a speculation.  It is so much easier to give a thing a bad name than to analyze it and point out its bad qualities—if it really has any.  A malicious twirl of the tongue may do the one—it takes no slight intellectual labor to do the other.  … (Railroads) are the only possible means by which the city can command the trade of a vast interior embracing well-nigh one third of the Union, and extending to the Pacific.

4/18/74

County Court met yesterday afternoon, voting 3-1 (Pentony opposed) to order the election.  Pentony’s reasons clearly stated (and in light of subsequent events, well-justified).  Election ordered for May 20, 1874.

5/16/74

The directors “feel confident that the subscription of stock asked of the county will ensure the completion of at least fifty miles of the road within a year …

5/17/74

The whole commercial destiny of Galveston depends upon the perfection of means designed in effect to annihilate the water space between her and the mainland … a liberal and energetic railroad policy is absolutely indispensable to the successful solution of this problem …  it is easy to see … the profound importance to Galveston of the early construction of the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railroad, contemplating, as this enterprise does, a close connection of this city with an immense westward stretch of interior territory.  The incalculable wealth of resources awaiting enterprise and industry in that country, cannot long remain undeveloped.  Westward the star of commercial empire takes its way … would not the refusal be in the nature of a suicidal sin of omission?”

5/26/74

Election results 3062 for and 3 against.

1/1/75

“But, as we understand it, the object of the people of Galveston in their present attempt to build the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe road, is altogether different from threat which has operated upon other companies.  Their object is not to make the stock a profitable investment, paying large dividends to the stockholders, but to build a road that shall be under the control of themselves.

1/16/75

Directors will ask for modification of Charter to shorten route to T&P by 20 miles.

1/17/75

Saving of nearly half a million dollars can be effected by pursuing a direct line from Virginia Point, instead of making the detour toward the lower Brazos.

2/24/75

Charter has just been amended by the present session of the Legislature.  Length shortened by over 20 miles.  A number of business in the city (listed) now subscribing for stock.

2/28/75

Map – Showing proposed map of route, to intersection with T&P line in Shackelford County.

3/23/75

Nearly $750,000 now subscribed, thought to be more than sufficient to construct to connection with I&GN, a distance of 41 miles.

4/1/75

$771,000 now subscribed.  Motion made and carried to commence construction of 41 miles to Arcola.  Motion adopted that Galveston contractors and laborers be given preference if economical for construction work.  Road destined for San Diego—water between ports 1500 miles vs. 2500 miles San Diego to New York

5/2/75

Report of groundbreaking on May 1, 1875. 

7/27/75

First 5 miles completed and accepted by County Court.

9/00/75

Hurricane.

3/19/76

Opinion of Court in Austin v. G.C.&S.F. released, sustaining financing.  Citizens taxed to pay cost. 

10/11/76

30 miles completed.

12/12/76

35 miles completed.

2/27/77

45 miles completed.

10/3/77

New members of the Board (listed).  Annual meeting (yesterday).  Directors authorized to issue first mortgage bonds per mile of road for construction purposes.  A little over half of the old board replaced, “thought to be excessively cautious … gentle reminder that more activity and progress are expected at the hands of the directory in the future.”  “the change, when supplemented by the judicious choice of a president, may be taken as the inauguration of a new era.”  New members:  G. G. Wells, Leon Blum, John D. Rogers, Henry Seeligson, H. Kempner, F. Charles Hume, A. H. Belo.

10/4/77

At stockholders meeting to confirm new directory, protest lodged by H. Rosenberg, Somerville and Davis, P. J. Willis & Bro., and A. P. Lufkin that County controlled shares had been voted for entire directory, overpowering right of individual shareholders to have any say.  County owns 5000 shares, individuals, 2750 shares.  County should not be able to vote on all 13 directors, only its ratio.  Kopperl moved for a new election.  Motion ruled out of order, one present categorizing the protest as “only a parting shot given by the out-going members to those who would succeed them.” 

10/6/77

Heated meeting of board of directors and stockholders yesterday, reported on at length.  No change in position of county representative.

10/9/77

Portion of old and new board met last night.  Reporter from the Galveston News “requested to retire.”  Minutes report a discussion regarding situation with board of directors.  Adjourned for 24 hours.

10/10/77

Meeting resumed yesterday.  All newly elected directors resigned.  New election called for October 20^th.  Commissioner’s Court requested to “appoint the number of directors that the county is entitled to in the board of directors.”

10/20/77

Editorial supports new election, and right of private stockholders to elect 5 of 13 directors.  [Editor has entirely reversed his position, compare to 10/6/77 editorial.]

10/20/77

Editorial from Brenham Banner, discussing cotton blockade at Houston laments failure of G.C.&S.F. to reach north.  “In a conversation with several of our cotton buyers we learn that much dissatisfaction exists on account of the freight to blockade at Houston.”  “The one thing that is needed now is direct communication with the sea.  This can be had by the completion of the much talked of G.C.&S.F. railroad, which, as everybody knows is “completed” to nowhere.  We are assured that as soon as this road is completed to this side of the Brazos River, assistance, liberal assistance, can be had from the people living along the line for its speedy construction to a paying point, Brenham.  The further the road is completed northward the better it will pay.  The people above here in Burleson, Milam and Bell counties want the road very badly, but have heard and read so much about it, with so little effort to build, that they have commenced to (if they have not already done so) lose all confidence in it.  Five years work has completed fifty miles, or at the rate of ten miles a year.  At the same rate we may expect to see the road here in about six or seven years.  The merchants and capitalists of Galveston owe it to themselves and to the expectant people west of the Brazos River to take immediate action and do something.  Had the road been completed every bale of cotton received here this season would have gone direct to Galveston, and much of it would have found a market there.”  The cotton market here is dull and unsettled, as buyers can make no calculation upon shipping, and do not care to buy with the prospect of holding it two or three weeks at their own risk of the market.  The orders of course are to buy and ship at once.  Two buyers now have unfilled orders from spinners for nearly three thousand bales, but, owing to want of shipping facilities, cannot do a thing.  Cotton is arriving at Houston faster than it can be transferred to Clinton and put afloat.  Morgan  has control of the Central, and of course is doing all in his power to prevent cotton going to Galveston, where ample shipping facilities to eastern parts are offered.  Cotton shipped from here to Galveston, either for sale or to be forwarded, is taken to Houston and dumped off anywhere, platform or no platform, it is all the same.  Once there, it lies from one to three weeks before it is sent to its destination.  The consequence of this is that buyers here can not afford to pay full prices, and much cotton that comes in is now going to the warehouses at the risk of fire or a high rate of insurance.  The direct result is a loss to the producer.”

10/21/77

No amicable settlement at stockholder’s meeting.

10/23/77

Meeting of County Commissioners Court held yesterday.  Nine directors named to represent Galveston County.  Prior position not retracted. 

11/21/77

New board of directors met, electing C. G. Wells President.

11/7/77

Paper carries copies of letters, C. G. Wells to H. Rosenberg, and reply.  Wells asks “of you, and each of you, to turn over to me, as President of the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railroad Company, all the property, real and personal, of the company, including its office and the records and papers of every kind …”  Rosenberg answers election not legal, will not comply, signs as President.

11/20/77

Paper carries copies of letters, C. G. Wells to C. C. Allen, and reply.  Allen was secretary of the old board.  Wells demands possession of the minutes, the seal, all deeds, leases, contracts, general reports, etc.  Allen declined to comply.

11/28/77

Suite filed.  Paper prints petition in full.  G.C. and S F. R.R. vs. Henry Rosenberg, et al..  Filed Nov. 24^th.

“The enterprise thus organized aspired to settle up and bring in cultivation the boundless prairies of the Northwest to make the barren place bloom as a rose, to civilize the savage and semi-barbarous tribes inhabiting the country through which it would pass … and be a grand artery of commerce.  The scheme itself was highly creditable to the age, and not only grand but sublime.”

November 14, 1873, Somerville elected president, Kopperl vice-president, and Sealy treasurer. 

“From causes of which plaintiff was wholly ignorant at the time (but will hereafter be set out) no work was done in 1874, when ill-timed and inexcusable inactivity dissatisfied plaintiff, and on the first Thursday in October (the day fixed by the charter for the annual election of directors), 1874, a new board was elected with John Sealy as president and A. C. Crawford vice-president.  Plaintiff expected the work would begin and be prosecuted with utmost vigor … and another seven months time was wasted in idleness and absolute inertia.  However, work began on or about May 1, 1875, but was so negligently and tardily prosecuted that in October following but five miles of the road had been constructed, and that, too, over ground presenting no obstacle to progress.  At the annual meeting of the stockholders held in October 1875, a new and third board of directors was elected, substantially the same as the two former boards, with a change in the executive head, to wit:  Henry Rosenberg, President, A. Somerville, Vice-President, and M. Kopperl, Treasurer.

At the annual meeting of the stockholders held in October 1876, they learned, to their great mortification, that but twenty miles of the road had been constructed the year previous … (New board elected, Henry Rosenberg, President, R. S. Willis, Vice-President, and M. Kopperl, Treasurer.)

“To the present time there has been constructed 45 miles of road through and terminating in an unproductive, unsettled, barren, level coast prairie country, its timbers rotting and decayed, the costly bridge over West Bay broken, the while in a dilapidated condition and absolutely worthless, except as so much old iron, the charter of the company forfeited, the enterprise an absolute wreck and the investment, without further extension of the road, a total loss.”

Defendants own a controlling interest in the Galveston, Houston and Henderson Railway Company, and leading from Galveston to Houston and nearly parallel with plaintiff’s road, which, when extended 20 miles further, would be a competing line with the defendants’ G. H. and H. road … delayed and procrastinate the work …”

(asserts negligence in placing bay bridge just north of G. H. and H. bridge instead of south.  Says G.H. & H. bridge would have served as “a protection and quasi-breakwater” but instead now bridge was “exposed to the fury and violence of the tides, and thereby has been and is now severely injured and broken and has been made worthless.”  (observes Chief Engineer Braxton Bragg advocated the more protected location, but was overruled) … I could have built to Belton by now, had authority to borrow money to do so … (damages requested--$150,000 for bridge, $200,000 for failure to deliver papers, etc.

12/2/77

New board meeting yesterday, unanimously resolving to withdraw request for damages, and only submit to the Court the issue of control.

12/5/77

New board met yesterday, resolving to resign.  Report of a contractor’s offer to build the road for $10,000 per mile cash or $15,000 per mile in 1^st mortgage bonds at 7%, to Belton, withdrawn because of controversy.

12/7/77

(copy all left column)  [William—bring me this to type]

12/8/77

Lengthy statement of position by old board, refuting statements in petition.

12/9/77

Editorial sharply critical of old board “a history of precious hope and fair expectancy starved and frozen on the bosom to which it was consigned for warmth and nurture … there the corpse lies … there is nothing either creditable to these managers or satisfactory to the public in the story of how it came to languish and die upon their hands … dilatory caution and sheer paralysis of action … they must soon radically change their demeanor, or become fixed objects of public reprobation.”

12/12/77

Reporting settlement conference yesterday “while we desire in this connection to let bygones rest, we may say that circumstances working to a fortunate issue have shaken these gentlemen from the comparative immobility which formerly applied in their conduct as managers … they are now alive to the urgency for progressive and efficient action in the prosecution of this enterprise.”

The gentlemen referred to are not blind and deaf and senseless—are not absolutely callous to the logic of events and the exigencies of the situation.

12/16/77

New board elected, by consent of both sides.  C. B. Lee, J. M. Brown, H. Kempner, M. Kopperl, C. W. Hurley, W. Gresham, J. E. Wallis, R. S. Willis, H. Rosenberg, H. Marwitz, Julius Runge, W. L. Moody, and James Sorley.

Condition of settlement was that Rosenberg not be president.

1/3/78

Meeting called yesterday evening at the Cotton Exchange, subject placement of bonds in amount of $200,000 to fund construction to Brenham.  Poorly attended—less than two dozen people present.  One speaker asserting that for the past six or seven years, the city had not kept progress with the sate, in which the population had doubled.

1/4/78

Interview with a half dozen of the wealthiest men in the city.  Speaks of economic depression, attributed to low price of cotton in last three years, gives prices.  Costing more to produce than proceeds. 

1/5/78

More interviews.  Suggestion is made that the directors ought to subscribe.

11/13/78

Kopperl states times too tight, only has $52,000 subscribed, remainder cannot be raised.

1/20/78

Contractors have presented proposals to the board.

1/25/78

Board has entered into contract with James H. Brooks to build to Brenham, subject to locally raising $100,000 for bonds.

1/26/78

Interview with Kopperl (president of the company).

2/7/78

Quoting Editorial from Austin County newspaper urging construction.

2/13/78

Editorial critical of directors.  “The performance has fallen short of the promise.”  “There are large interests which are adverse to those of the promoters of the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railroad … the News … will not sanction a pottering and dilatory course on the part of a management which arrogated the exclusive right, fitness and ability for the business of pushing the road to a speedy and satisfactory completion.

Separate article this date highly critical.  “The crowning glory of this wonderful enterprise has reached its sad destiny.  All the bewildering hopes of a city and county, made glad with bright promises, have gone down among the clouds of oblivion … all our bright hopes and dreams float away into the dreary realm where rest in their last undisturbed repose three quarters of a million of the people’s money, vainly and mercifully squandered in a successful attempt not to build the road …  The road lies wasting and rotting in a hopeless ruin …  The County Court should turn loose her war dogs again …

Kopperl has been granted an indefinite leave of absence on account of ill health.

2/27/78

Kopperl offered resignation to board, not accepted.  Company to begin running trains over the road, twice a week.

3/7/78

Editorial suggests directors lack any railroad experience, and ought to hire a competent person as general superintendent.  Letter to editor (anonymous) says “The idea which many have that their names are all that is necessary to further the undertaking, is a mistake …”

3/21/78

M. Kopperl, et al. departed yesterday for Brenham by train, from which point will travel north over land to Belton, stopping at each town along the way to seek support for the road.

4/4/78

Brenham and County pledge $150,000 in “cash, produce or labor” and a remission from taxes for 20 years.

4/26/78

Mass meeting at Richmond, Fort Bend Co., tomorrow.

5/18/78

$100,000 subscriptions secured in Bell Co., $20,000 in Milam, $20,000 or $30,000 in Burleson.

6/11/78

$140,000 in lands, money and produce subscribed in Bell County.

6/25/78

An English firm (not named) has agreed to loan $2.7 million, represented by bonds bearing 7% interest, on the road.

6/26/78

Speculation regarding financing arrangements.

7/10/78

Details on lender, London firm of Dennistown, Cross & Co. and its proposal.  Speaks of New York opposition by those who hold stock in the Texas Central, the International, the G.H.&H. and G.H. and S.A. roads.  Mr. Seller, representative of lender, a friend of M. Kopperl.

2/12/78

Felicitations are premature.  There is no commitment by the London firm to take the bonds itself, only to broker them.

7/13/78

Thoughts that bondholders should not be able to vote for directors.  Bonds will probably bring 70 cents on the dollar.

Iron bridge materials for crossing Brazos have been shipped, road now graded to Richmond.

7/14/78

Retraction of remarks that Pierce, Mallory and Morgan were blocking bond sales efforts in New York.

7/21/78

J. S. Brown, at stockholder’s meeting, proposed change of name to “Galveston and Santa Fe.”  On discussion, decided unwise to change name while financing negotiations in progress.  Motion to withdraw. 

8/7/78

Contract signed with Mr. Brooks to complete the 80 miles in order to save the Charter franchise.

8/24/78

Piers across the Brazos in place, iron spans are being placed.

8/25/78

County officials conclude against ratification of form of bonds—too stringent.

8/27/78

Particulars of county objections to the financing proposal—focused on loss of local control.  Response by Julius Runge “Do you want the railroad? … Are you willing to give control of the enterprise to the parties furnishing the money to build the road?  If these questions are answered in the affirmative, the gentlemen in London will try to help us.  … Are better offers in the market?  I hope to hear that those gentlemen who have so much to say about the “stringent terms of the bargain” can come forward and furnish the money to build the road we all want … how easy it is to talk about millions, but who can furnish them?  ($2.7 million in 30 year bonds at 7%) Proposition required that all materials be purchased from E. Pavenstedt & Co.

8/28/78

A majority of the County Commissioners in interviews commit themselves to vote for ratification of the contract with Dennistown, Cross & Co.

8/30/78

Interview with George Mosely, sent from New York as an expert representative of firm of E. Parinstedt & Co., to inspect completed road and projected route.  Mosely stated there should be no fear that foreign bondholders would seek control, all they wanted was the investment income.

9/7/78

Committee appointed to seek local placement of $200,000 in bonds, necessary to build to 80 miles by November 26^th in order to avoid forfeiture of the Charter.

9/17/78

Meeting of stockholders on the 16^th, vote strongly in favor of accepting proposition of Dennistown, Cross & Co.  County voted its shares favorably.

9/19/78

$182,000 in bonds locally subscribed.  Some conditioned on successful placement of remainder by Dennistown, Cross & Co.  Many prominent merchants and landowners declining.

9/20/78

Editorial – Failure to subscribe $200,000 locally “would be most discredible to the businessmen of the city.”  The road must be extended 17 more miles by November 26^th to save the charter.

10/5/78

Bridge across the Brazos in pace (place?), completing to milepost 50, thus earning last $50,000 in county bonds originally pledged.  Road has three locomotives, one named the James Sorley.  Roadbed is graded 11 miles beyond Richmond.  At Richmond, will make connection with the Sunset live, enabling passage of traffic from San Antonio to bypass Houston.

10/20/78

Road completed to __________(?) 5 miles, tied three miles further.  Progress delayed awaiting lumber coming by ship from Louisiana, but port of departure quarantined at present.  New postal/baggage car in service.

10/24/78

Kopperl reports to county court for last $50,000 in bonds, says regular service to Arcola Junction conven______(?) March 1^st, 42.5 miles out from Galveston.  Company operating one locomotive and 20 cars, and has just purchased two locomotives, two passenger coaches, one baggage car and 40 freight cars.  Brazos bridge 485 feet in length.

11/13/78

Board resolved to seek a loan of $290,000 to enable liquidation of debt and funds to reach Richmond, presently only four miles short with exception of some bridging and trestling(?)

11/20/78

Dennistown, Cross & Co. has withdrawn its interest because of “certain legal opinions” [probably realized could not legally take control of the board in _____(?) of county ownership, charter, etc., which gave county control.  Issue of sovereign immunity may have figured in the minds of London financing].

Harris County Health officer “Dr. Rutherford” issued an order of quarantine against Galveston earlier this fall, apparently.  Writer observes opening of G.C.&S.F. line would _____(?) independence from Harris County control.

11/26/78

Call for meeting of stockholders asking permission to mortgage the road for $290,000, 90-day term.  “An invitation is extended to those without desire to invest in the security offered to give notice of such desire to the secretary of the company.  Editor questions power of directory to seek a loan.

11/28/78

Editor says D.C.&Co. pulled out because of forfeiture of charter, quarantine preventing arrival of necessary lumber.  Vice-president Earley reports construction was pushed to Richmond and equipment ordered and grading made past Richmond when it appeared D.C.&Co. transaction would close.  Now that it has failed to materialize, must pay these bills.

12/6/78

“Citizen” in a letter to the editor says D.C.&Co. pulled out because of legal opinion by _____(?) for county.  Suggests loan will tide over the company until legislature meets and extends charter.  Urges stockholder approval of request by board for authority to seek a loan, else Galveston will remain “at the mercy of the Texas Central Railroad and the Morgan Steamship Company, to say nothing of Houston, which can stop at a moment almost our entire ingress and egress with the _____(?) of the state.”

Ed_____(?) says there is expectation that Galveston citizen(s) will float the loan, enabling connection to Richmond.

12/10/78

“Taxpayer” in a letter to the editor, answers “Citizen.”  Cites a rumor that the Directors plan to lend the money, then foreclose, and own the road themselves.  Says no objection if they commit to build to Belton.

Editorial says if directors do lend the money and seek foreclosure, th_____ will have to be a public sale, and they will have to be the high bidder.  And if that happens, it would not be a calamity, because control would remain in Galveston, and the road would still benefit the city.  And, it would be unreasonable to require construction to Belton by the purchaser(s).  – “preposterously exacting.”  Up to the present time, too much reliance has been placed on outside capitalists.  “Galveston can furnish half a dozen even who, by bending their energies and lending their credit to the enterprise, may push it to a rapid completion. If this purpose can best be effected by a public sale of the road, so as to free it from all embarrassments and bring about a concentration of interests and a di_____(?) of management, the transfer of title to the road and its franchise by that means will not, we apprehend, be regarded in the light of a public disaster.

12/11/78

County Commissioners interviewed.  All are in support of the loan and mortgage, and even foreclosure, sensing it will enable extension of road and keep control in Galveston.  Discussion seems to indicate assurance has been given that “nine or ten” “_____(?) of the city” would make the loan.  [Perhaps all supporting as a face-saving _____(?) to get a new board?]  R_____(?) by Judge Williams “we have got to the jumping off place, and we might as well jump.”  “He could not see why people would want to hold on to an enterprise which was worth nothing in their hands.”

12/10/78

Prospective lenders identified:  H.S. Willis, M. Kopperl, George Sealy, J.J.. Hendley, Julius Runge, H. Rosenberg, Marx & Kempner, Moody & Jemison, Wallis, Landes & Co., G. Heidenheimer(?) & Co., LeGierse & Co., Somerville & Davis, Isadore Dyer, C.H. Richards, J.D. Rogers, L.&H. Blum, and Geo. Schneider & Co.

12/14/78

Board of Directors votes to accept a loan, offered by George Sealy on behalf of himself, Ball, Hutchings & Co., M. Kopperl, J.J. Hendley, Somerville & Davis, R.S. Willis, H. Rosenberg, Moody & Jemison, Wallis, Landes & Co., H. Kempner, Chas. E. Richards. G. Heidenheimer(?), Isadore Dyer, Julius Runge, LeGierse & Co., John D. Rogers, and Leon & H. Blum.

Agreement provided that any stockholder could subscribe to the loan.  Commissioner’s Court was asked if it would support the proposition.  It _____(?) two hours later, and unanimously voted in support.

12/15/78

Shareholders vote unanimously in favor of proposition.  Editorial strongly favorable.

1/19/79

County Commissioners Court notes to seek authority from the state legislature to authorize sale of County’s stock in the company.

3/13/79

Bill passed state legislature, contains a provision that the purchasers execute a bond of $200,000 that road would within four years be completed to Hou.(?)  The court was requested to authorize by private sale the stock, and asked to name a price.  Judge Williams suggested $10,000.

Mr. Gresham(?) (position?) stated there were parties in the city who did not desire to see the road built, and could afford to pay a higher price than the parties he represented.  “Capt. Mott.” Identified these parties as “Combs, of the sunset Route, and the Texas Central railroad.  They both would arrange with the New Orleans road to i_____(?) Galveston.  If the Santa Fe road were built to Belton, cotton would be carried from Belton to Galveston for $1.50 a bale, and Morgan would have to seek Galveston as a feeder for his ships and railroads.  Galveston is doomed if this opportunity is let slip … I advise the Commissioners to sell the stock to the present _____(?) or mortgage holders, and then we will have a guarantee that the road will be built to Belton.”

One Commissioner (Goggan) opposed to private sale to the “home directory,” considering duty to taxpayers to obtain big best bid.  Others all disagreed, “Judge Williams said any public officer who feared to assume responsibility was worthless as an officer … If the people don’t like it they have their remedy.  They can put us out.

3/15/79

County Commissioners Court voted 4 – 1 (Goggan voting no) to sell its stock to the bond and mortgage holders for $10,000.

In a separate article on same date, criticism by Heidenheimer(?):  “Mr. Heidenheimer(?) thought we always complain too much of parties far off and not enough of those who are at home.  There are no freight charges so enormous as the road between here and Houston.  We never complain of this.  It would be the very best thing we could do to demand something of the G.H. and H.R.R. which is the biggest bleeding machine in the whole country.  Why don’t you go after John Sealy, and have him reduce rates?  From Houston to Galveston charging $1.00 to ship a bale of cotton when the Morgan line takes a bale the whole way to New Orleans for $1.50.  “These sort of home bleeders are sucking the life-blood and the Galveston merchants don’t see it.”

3/22/79

Advertisement for foreclosure sale.

4/16/79

Foreclosure sale of the company yesterday noon on the courthouse steps, A.J. Walker bidding against John Sealy, Walker starting at $50,000, Sealy ending with high bid at $200,000.

6/15/79

Meeting with citizens in Belton, seeking extensions of subscriptions and additional support.

7/25/79

Grading in progress north and south of Bellville, company laying out a new addition on east side.

8/22/79

Company representatives in Belton examining different ap_____(?).  cotton in Bell County expected to make about one bale per five acres.

9/9/79

Parts for new iron bridge across the Brazos arrived yesterday on steamship, City of San Antonio.  Grading from Richmond to Brenham, 63 miles, nearly complete.

9/24/79

State declines to approve land certificates for portion over the Brazos, since not open for traffic.

9/25/79

Editorial.  Brazos Bridge was completed, but destroyed in flood last summer.  “To raise technical objections that work practical denial of justice is generally proof of a narrow mind or sinister purpose.”

10/2/79

Brazos bridge will be ready for the passage of trains in about two weeks, road is expected to be finished to B_____(?) by Christmas.

10/6/79

Old Brazos Bridge destroyed last April.  Was three spans, longest one 160 feet so that a pier was required in the middle of the river.  Drift washed it out so two spans collapsed.  New central span reaches from bank to bank, 263 feet.  Made by Baltimore Bridge Co.

Rolling stock consists of seven locomotives, two first- and two second-class coaches, one baggage and mail car, 64 box cars and 112 flat cars.

10/8/79

Following elected yesterday as directors for the following year:  John Sealy, George Sealy, R.S. Willis, M. Kopperl, W.S. Davis, Jno.(?) D. Rogers, J.E. Wallis, H. Rosenberg, Leon Blym, W.L. Moody, Walter Gresham, S. Heidenheimer(?), Julius Runge.

10/17/79

Construction trains passed over the Brazos Bridge on the 16^th.

10/26/79

Arrangement may be made with International & G_____(?) Northern for its cars to leave its tracks at Arcola and come to Galveston on the Santa Fe.

10/29/79

Excursion to Richmond.

11/26/79

Brenham Sentinel reports there will be three stations between Richmond and Brenham, at Govine Bend, Bellville and Concord.

12/25/79

George Sealy issues a press release (on the 24^th) announcing that the original subscribers to the “syndicate” which purchased the road have increased their subscription to $2.5 million.

12/27/79

Locating engineers approaching Cameron.

12/28/79

About four years ago, Morgan declared war on the City of Galveston … founded the city of Clinton and established a ship channel to that point.  City of Galveston, responded with plans to build G.C.&S.F., only now coming to fruition.

9/29/80

Fort Worth as subscribed $75,000 for the road.

12/26/80

Advertisement.  Notice given by company it will seek amendment of its charter to enable different routing (set forth).

1/16/81

Jay Gould seeks to buy a controlling interest in the company.

2/12/81

On February 1, 1980, road had _____(?) a point 2-1/2 miles beyond Sealy.  Road now built to Belton, passenger trains to start running by the 15^th.  Progress slowed 60 days waiting for timber, 25 days by flood of Little River, _____(?) by unusually rainy season.

2/20/81

Statistical report of operations for last five months of 1880, presented to board at its meeting February 14, 1881.

August 1, 1880, opened to Brenham

September 4, 1880, opened to Caldwell

September 21, 1880, opened to Milano

December 9, 1880, opened to Rogers

Carried 17,201 passengers

Carried 112,918 tons of freight

8/10/81

Tracks reached Morgan on the 9^th.

5/6/81

Reports conference between G.C.&S.F. and Chicago, Texas and Mexican Central.  Currently extending Dallas to Paris where connection is made with St. Louis and San Francisco.  “This is a new move on the part of the Santa Fe, evidently looking to an outlet to the east other than by any of the divisions of the Gould Southwestern System.”

5/25/81

Gould has purchased a controlling interest in the Galveston, Houston, and Henderson road.

6/8/81

Arrangements completed for Santa Fe purchase of Chicago, Texas and Mexico Road.

1/24/81

G.C.&S.F. principal stockholders ag_____(?) each to the other, none will sell greater than 25% of their stock for a term of three years, except by consent of ¾ of the signatories.

3/30/81

Gould offered to buy the Santa Fe line from Belton to Fort Worth and finish it.  Sealy agreed, but directors did not.

4/28/81

Editorial critical of re_____(?) by directors.

10/5/81

Annual Meeting.  Directors elected:  R.G. Willis, W.S. Davis, George Sealy, John Sealy, Henry Rosenberg, J.E. Wallis, H. Kempner, W.L. Moody, Leon Blum, John D. Rogers, M. Kopperl, Walter Gresham, and Samson Heidenheimer.

??

Statistics given for first full year of operation.

10/19/81

Completion of trackage to Cleburne delayed by bad weather.  Station named for M. Kopperl.

11/12/81

Santa Fe is 12 miles from Fort Worth.

11/20/81

Excursion trip for officers.  Only first 25 miles of country unfit for the plow.  Bosque Valley area most beautiful.

12/3/81

Road goes through ten old towns (Richmond, Bellville, Brenham, Caldwell, Cameron, Belton, Clifton, Meridian, Cleburne, and Fort Worth).  The road has 18 towns of its own.  Fort Worth reached on December 2^nd.

12/10/81

Nearly graded to Lampasas.

1/26/82

Some cotton moving north from Galveston.  “Appears somewhat strange,” but acts competitively to keep maritime rates low.

1/2/82

Summary of construction history and financial status.

1/5/82

Abilene expects it will be the junction point on the T&P line, being ranked third in freight handled on that line, only behind Dallas & Fort Worth.

2/8/82

Gould seeks company increase in rates to match his companies.  Speculation G.C.&S.F. may join Gould system of southwestern line.  See 2/3/82 editorial.

1/25/82

Grading completed to Lampasas.  Central & Montgomery line purchased.

3/8/82

Description of shops and shop buildings at Galveston. 

4/11/82

AT&SF is surveying for the most feasible route south from Caldwell, Kansas via Forts Reno and Sill to a connection with the G.C.&S.F.

6/4/82

Report on construction in progress on Navasota branch.

6/8/82

Tour of Galveston shops described.

8/11/82

Eight new locomotives ordered.

9/8/82

Sale of McGregor town lots.  435 lots sold, bringing $35,000—more than realized from Temple sale.

10/4/82

Annual meeting.  Directors re-elected.

10/6/82

Discussion of statistics from annual report.

10/25/82

Company at work on acquiring right-of-way north of Fort Worth.

12/17/82

Cotton receipts at Galveston:

1867-68           112,851 bales

1868-69           146,152 bales

1869-70           343,833 bales

1879-80           694,661 bales

Present season 900,000 bales expected.

2/4/82

(Quoted from the Chicago Times):

“Among the Chicago railwaymen who think it probable that the ownership of the St. Louis and San Francisco road has, as is reported, fallen into the hands of Gould and Huntington, the fear is expressed that the sale is the culminating transaction in a gigantic scheme to put St. Louis in the lead of Chicago in their commercial relations with that almost continental region of which Texas is the base.  They see that Gould is the absolute master of the railway outlets southwesterly from St. Louis.  Not a line has escaped his clutch.  Chicago now has no means of commercial communication with Texas, Arkansas and all the Southwestern region except over roads controlled by Gould.  The Alton and Burlington, which have lines terminal at St. Louis, are deprived of the alternative, heretofore at their option, of doing business over the only independent route southwest from that city . . .

            “The Chicago railway interests, which find the door to the Southwest thus slammed in their teeth, as it were, look to the Kansas City, Gulf and Colorado and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroads as the only outlets left them into the southwest.  The Atchison road will soon be a continuous line from Kansas City to Guaymas . . .  It is the opinion here that . . . the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe will undoubtedly build a line from its main route, somewhere in Kansas, southward to Texas, in order that Chicago may benefit by an outlet to that region which is not bound to pay tribute to St. Louis . . .  If Gould intends warfare on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe and the Atlantic and Pacific, he will have to fight the Boston syndicate—the most powerful combination in the country.  In any event, there is a fair prospect of lively bushwhacking in the Southwest during the next 30 days.”

[Quoted from the New Orleans Times-Democrat, Dallas Correspondent, Feb. 9, 1882]:

“Rumor has been busy during the week with the name of Jay Gould and what he will do next.  Yesterday, it was reported all over town that he had bought out the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe . . . but it is today vehemently denied.  Although we know of his having captured no road since he picked up the St. Louis and San Francisco, we every morning get out of bed expecting to hear of his taking in the Houston and Texas Central and the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe, the only broad gauges now left in Texas not belonging to Gould and Huntington . . .

            “The other side of Gould and Huntington is, they have in the last two years built more railroads in Texas than the natives would build in the next 50 or 75 years . . .  The Texas and Pacific was commenced twenty-five years ago and finished to Fort Worth in 1875, where it stopped until 1880.  In 1880-81 Gould built 600 miles and ran the road to El Paso, forming a connection with California.  Huntington is running the Southern Pacific from El Paso to San Antonio at the rate of three miles of new track per day.  Besides the Texas and Pacific, Gould has in the last two years, constructed two or three hundred miles in Texas on his Missouri-Pacific and International [and Great Northern], and in a very few months will run his trains to the City of Mexico.  Of course, these grand lines through our state are rapidly drawing populations along them.  Wealth will quickly follow.  Other roads will become necessary.  New cities and towns will spring into existence with their thousand elements of civilization.  The evils from these men only exist in the apprehension.  Up to this hour they have bestowed nothing but good upon Texas.  They have forced Texas a half century ahead of its natural gait.  Left alone, we would not have reached California and the Mexican Capital much short of 1950.

5/28/82

Chicago, Texas & Mexico road purchased by G.C.&S.F. for $19,000 per mile, subject to ratification by directories.

5/17/82

G.C.&S.F., with A.T.&S.F. and Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Roads declines to join the Texas Traffic Pool being pushed by Gould, Huntington & Morgan.

6/24/82

CT&M sale consummated, possession effective July 1^st.

5/28/82

G.C.&S.F. offered to Alton & Chicago Road and to Burlington Road 400,000 bales of cotton annually “and the bulk of the cattle trade of western Texas” for extension from Kansas City, meeting G.C.&S.F. in Indian Territory with joint construction there.

??

Rate war with Gould Lines.

6/10/83

About 35 Galveston stockholders have signed an agreement not to sell to an outsider.  Five year term.  (See full text 6/5/83 file).  (M. Kopperl deceased by this time, executor signs for him).

7/18/83

Northward extension from Dallas a matter of time.

8/2/83

At stockholders meeting yesterday, issuance of second mortgage bonds approved.  Sealy refuses to say where extension is contemplated to (for which these funds are needed).

8/10/83

Rumor that company will extend line from Fort worth to Gainesville, thence to a connection with Santa Fe at or near Dodge City, Kansas.

8/9/83

Texas & St. Louis Road opened from Gatesville to Cairo, intersecting G.C.&S.F. at McGregor.  (This is a narrow gauge route).

12/1/83

G.C.&S.F. will go before Congress with a bill authorizing construction over Indian Territory.

12/11/83

Dallas unhappy that G.C.&S.F. northward route will be from Fort Worth instead of Dallas.

5/4/83

Carries full text of April 14^th letter from Gould lines representative to John Sealy saying after May 1^st, G.C.&S.F. through tickets and baggage checks would not be honored.  And Sealy’s reply. 

Gould System letter (Missouri-Pacific Lines letterhead):

“After maturely considering the relations of the respective railways . . . we think it is neither beneficial to us nor necessary to the convenience of the public that we should honor coupon tickets or recognize baggage checks from your lives . . . it is, as we think, unreasonable to require us to adopt methods which would divide our passenger business with you when nine-tenths of the traveling public would not in the slightest degree be better accommodated.”

Sealy response:

“not only a great injustice, but a discrimination against this company made apparently with a view of injuring and harassing its business, inasmuch as you do not apply the same rule to other railway companies doing business in this state . . .

[Gould becoming desperate, G.C.&S.F. was becoming a significant threat.]

5/3/83

“In a general way it is intimated at Santa Fe headquarters here that the present action of the Gould lines is only in keeping with what has been threatened from time to time lately, and is nothing more than what was expected to occur at any moment.  The through passenger business of the Santa Fe road is said to amount to very little at the best, while it is maintained that through freight is regulated to a certain extent by statute.  If war to the bitter end between the two systems is a condition to be settled upon, and nothing else will suffice, the Galveston road may be forced to a point of activity that will dictate at all hazards connections elsewhere.  In this respect the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe is mentioned.  The Galveston road could be built northward from Fort Worth to a point of junction . . . such a connection would carry the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe into Kansas City, the center of a railroad system radiating to all points of the United States.  What such a combination as that indicated would involve is left to the future to determine.  The Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe might continue to be operated under such an arrangement as an independent line, or perhaps it might become a solidified and component part of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe system.  This will also be left to the future to determine.  The Galveston road controls a fine paying local business, independent of through connections, which places it in fair position to await events and form combinations . . . ordinary sized fish of the Galveston road’s palatable character are always a tempting bait to the larger species . . . Mr. Gould and party, the News learns, will be in Galveston sometime this evening, when possibly something more may be ascertained. 

5/5/83

Extensive report on Jay Gould’s visit to Galveston—“a very agreeable looking party if they were here in their war paint.”  Private visits took place.  No public comments by participants regarding discussions, which all alleged to be purely social.

8/29/84

John Sealy died.

12/27/84

Article “When Will Times Mend” reporting “local depression in business circles” because of “two disastrous year for its principal staple, the cotton crop.”  Loss in yield for the two seasons combined not less than 1,000,000 bales, representing a sum “almost equal to $50,000,000.”  Cattle industry also suffering severely, as to price.  Another factor hurting Galveston:

“The cotton crop, the principal source of agricultural wealth in Texas, great or small, is now being handled in such a manner by through shipments from points of local marketing, that it inclines to distribute its profits more and more each year rather than to concentrate them upon a few given points of shipment.  In other words, the consignment of cotton to a local factor is becoming very rapidly one of the things of the past. . . .  Under such conditions capital in cotton compresses here and the labor necessary in this latter industry are all seriously affected by the shortage in port receipts.”

[No doubt G.C.&S.F. also badly affected, yet another factor driving it into the arms of the A.T.&S.F.]

“The News has heard a remedy suggested for this through shipment business, and that is . . . that Galveston capital enter the field as a buyer direct, and thus control the raw material, its course and character of shipment.  In other words, Galveston cotton men should become interior cotton buyers.  But this suggested remedy is in the nature of a deflection.”

10/10/84

Report of President George Sealy at annual stockholder’s meeting 10/7/84:

-        Past year’s business has been “disastrous”

-        Railroads in competition with each other for reduced traffic engage in a rate war

-        Wages to employees reduced

-        Sealy states will not be a candidate for reelection as president.  Says has lost his two business partners in the last year, John Sealy and George Ball, and being executor of both estates, is consumed for time.  [10/14/84 report, board refused to allow resignation, elected him for another term]

-        Managers of principal competing lines “have entered into contracts advancing rates of freight . . . on the basis of a fair division at all competing points, so that even with no more business the coming year . . . our net revenue will be much larger.

-        Right-of-way through Indian Nation has been secured from the General Government, but no construction thought advisable yet.  Must build 100 miles within three years.

1/23/84

Regarding rumor of John Sealy’s impending resignation as general manager, George Sealy, president, interviewed.  Says John desires to be relieved, tendered resignation, not accepted.  George said he told board he would resign, let John be president and hire an experienced general manager.  This agreed to, and board hired Webster Snyder, presently general manager of the Louisville, Evansville and St. Louis Railroad, to take charge about March 1^st.  George says when Snyder “gets into active service” he will resign and board will elect John in his place. 

[Railway Age 1/25/84 says Snyder “well known for his connection with the Union Pacific, the Canada Southern, and other roads.]

8/30/84

Death of John Sealy yesterday, age 62.  In 1879 president of Santa Fe.  Year following resigned and went to Europe.  In 1881, upon return, was made general manager, resigned last April in favor of Webster Snyder.  Survived by a son and a daughter (and widow).  Leaves a fortune estimated at $1 million or $1.5 million.  Died at home, corner of Tremont and Avenue I.  “Sufferer for two or three weeks with a carbuncle on his neck.”  Last quoted words “let me lie down.”

10/17/84

Railroad Gazette reports that at annual meeting, vacancies indirectly caused by death of John Sealy and resignation of Percy R. Pyre not filled, reducing board size from 13 to 11.

5/6/84

Quotes a report from Railway Age that engineers for the A.T.&S.F. are surveying to discover best route from Arkansas City to Fort Worth, Texas, going through the Sac and Fox reservation and via Gainesville, Texas.

6/20/84

Railroad Gazette, p. 473, reports special meeting of stockholders June 11^th, to consider a proposition for extension of the mainline and building of several branches of about 200 miles in all, proposition voted down.

7/1/84

Indian Territory right-of-way bill has passed Congress and been sent to the President for his signature.  (full text of bill this issue)

7/5/84

Bill signed by the President July 4^th.

7/6/84

Interview with Walter Gresham, who shepherded bill through Congress.  Comments that grain traffic from Kansas and Nebraska coming to Galveston will find export advantage of about 16 cents a bushel.

9/8/84

McDonough, in splinter “Building the Santa Fe” reports that on September 8, 1884, Board of Directors passed a resolution instructing General Manager to send an engineer to inspect possible routes north from Fort Worth through Indian Territory.

4/7/84

Cherokee and Creek Indian representatives protest granting of railroad rights-of-way across their reservations.  Assert violation of treaties.  Lengthy statement of their rationale and objections, well written.*  See Railroad Gazette, 10/31/84, page 789 for statement of Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior.  He asserts violation of treaty of 1866, which said there would be but one north-south and one east-west road through the territory.

*

-        Assert $50 per mile damages inadequate

-        Assert allows employees to settle on right-of-way, and creation of settlements along the way

-        Would introduce all manners of traffic with liquor and other abuses

-        “A scheme expressly devised to break up and destroy the country of the five nations.”

-        “would introduce into our country all the riff raff that for years have been seeking to invade it.”

-        Violation of the Treaty of 1835 (terms quoted)

-        Indians cite U.S. Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Richard S. Cox, S.Ct. 18 Hou 100-106.  This case discusses the legal status of the Cherokee Nation.

8/8/84

Railroad Gazette, page 595, reports truce in rate war between G.C.&S.F. and Gould roads, effective August 1^st. 

11/3/84

Substantial reductions in personnel and in salaries, with a view to reduce operating expenses.

2/15/85

Gresham asks Fort Worth to obtain right-of-way 30 miles north of that town.  Gainesville agrees to supply remainder to state line.

2/16/85

Contractors bids being opened today for construction 25 miles westward from Lampasas.

3/20/85

Railroad Gazette reports that at annual meeting on March 3^rd, following directors elected:  Leon Blum, W. S. Davis, J. H. Hutchings, Walter Gresham, H. Kempner, W. L. Moody, J. D. Rogers, H. Rosenberg, George Sealy, J. E. Wallis, R. S. Willis.  (Webster Snyder is General Manager and Chief Engineer, and Walter Gresham is Second Vice-President, per Railroad Gazette 4/13/85).

4/15/85

“The Cattle Trail” Wichita Falls – Special

“A circular issued March 4 by the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway, embracing a letter from Colonel McCausland, is calculated to mislead the uninformed.  The letter states that a practicable cattle trail can be established from Lampasas as an outlet for southern cattle . . . while the fact is that this section is now fully stocked with range cattle, most of it in closed by pastures, and the balance is full of farmers and small stock men, and a trail could not be opened on this route.”  Circular apparently suggests cattle coming from Milleim could go via Lampasas.  Writer says cattle can be shipped to Station of Harrold on the Wichita Falls line, and more north from there in open country after waiting 60 day quarantine period.

4/10/85

Proposal to extend to Brownwood for certain considerations.

4/14/85

A delegation from West Texas seeks from Lampasas a routing to Colorado City rather than Brownwood.  Via San Saba, McCulloch, Concho, Tom Green and Mitchell Counties.  Says San Angelo is largest town in Texas without a railroad.  Says would make Galveston a wool center.  Persons attending on behalf of each county are named.

5/1/85

Letter booming Brown and Coleman Counties.

5/3/85

Long letter booming Lampasas and Lampasas County

5/9/85

Letter critical of Colorado City routing.

6/5/85

Cotton is beginning to move from the interior directly to the east.  But country west of Brownwood well suited for small grains.  Predicts Galveston may become a wheat export center.  [came true!]

6/17/85

At stockholders meeting yesterday, issuance of second mortgage bonds authorized.

10/16/85

Quoting “Chief Engineer” “Sherman” in a split in board of directors on thoughts for best routing west out of Lampasas.  One member favored a line through San Saba and Brady to bank of Concho River, but not across it.  Outvoted in favor of route to Brownwood and Coleman, then west.

10/18/85

Messrs. M. Marx and Sylvan Blum report on an inspection of the Coleman area.

3/15/85

“The spirit of the strike now prevalent in northern Texas is beginning to permeate in this direction, and take hold of the employees of the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway, whose wages were cut several months ago.  A meeting of the employees of this road was held in this city yesterday evening, at which it was unanimously agreed to lay their grievances before the General Manager, and petition for a restoration of normal wages.”

8/28/85

“At 3:30 this afternoon the men in the employ of the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe road struck, with the exception of the passenger crews.  Everything is suspended save the passenger traffic.  Trouble has been brewing between the officials of the company and the employees for some time past.  Some time ago the company made a sweeping cut in wages.  Tuesday a committee waited on Mr. Snyder, general manager of the road, and demanded that the wages should not only be restored to what they originally were, but raised to the standard of wages paid to the employees of the Missouri-Pacific.  The general manager was given until noon to-day to decide.  At noon a negative answer was received and a strike was ordered at once.  Both sides seem determined.”

Separate long article, same date, contains interviews with Webster Snyder and with an unnamed labor representative.  Latter stated that prior August, wage cuts were made, resulting in a strike in May, yielding restoration of wages at Galveston but not elsewhere along the line.  Strikers want restoration along entire line. 

8/29/85

Strike continues.  Another long article.  Reports strike in progress at Tyler on Texas and St. Louis Road.  Strikers deny intention to disrupt passenger service, but are doing so.  Company officers met with Galveston mayor to request police assistance.  Police efforts to prevent killing of last live locomotive unsuccessful.  “A clever manipulation of some part of the machinery blew off the steam with a deafening noise and a vapor and smoke that almost hid the locomotive and the blue coated officers from view.  The locomotive was killed, and the murder committed right under the eyes of the guardians of the peace.  A more completely nonplussed set of men could not be imagined, but, enveloped in smoke and vapor, they stood their ground, letting the noble machine die under their feet, no one in the party knowing how to apply the remedy . . .  No arrests were made.  . . .  The damage to business in Galveston will be incalculable if the strike is permitted to continue much longer.  No overtures have yet been made on either side.”

8/29/85

Strike begins at Temple.  Report says wages cut between 15% and 25% about a year ago, with promise to restore in 60-90 days, but it has not happened.

8/30/85

Another long article.  Police declining to make arrests, because no forcible interference.  Company giving up on municipal police, asking assistance of County Sheriff.  [Problem is, all friends and relatives of the strikers.]  Sheriff summoning a posse comitatus (public volunteers).  “The fact of the grievances not being comprehensively understood, never having been given to the public in detail, leaves a wavering of public opinion as to the justice of the demands.”  Minimum wage paid by company is $1.15 per day, to section heads.  Strikers want $1.30. 

8/31/85

Another long, and interesting, article.  Artillery pieces handed to the yard by posse.  Another engine killed under the eyes of the Sheriff.  “Almost under the very glare of the bayonets.”  “The sheriff saw that in such warfare, where professional mechanical skill, adroitly exercised, was made the criterion of success, he was working at odds . . .”  Sheriff reported to Walter Gresham that short of a general massacre he could not alter the circumstances.  Gresham then met with a labor representative, Patrick Emmit, chairman of the Executive Board of the K. of L., and they agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration.  Interim wage protection details given.

9/1/85

Board of arbitrators consists of Messrs. Emmit, (Frank) McMahon and (Sam) Eldridge from Knights of Labor, and Messrs. Sealy, Gresham and Davis, from the Directory of the Company, met yesterday at 7:00, adjourned to 7:00 this evening.

9/2/85

Editorial generally on strikes.

9/2/85

Conference last night continued to nearly 11:00 p.m., “during which a large number of laborers assembled on the Strand in front of the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe office awaiting to hear the result.  From what could be gathered it is understood that the differences are being considered ad seriatim, and so far as the arbitration has progressed the concessions asked for have been generally conceded.  One of the conditions agreed to are that all of the late striking laborers are to be retained in the service of the road.”  Another meeting at 7:00 this evening.

9/3/85

Strike settled in conference last night.  Details not yet learned, “but it is understood that the concessions asked for by the strikers were very generally conceded.”

[discussion of cotton traffic Galveston v. Houston v. New Orleans this page]

2/9/86

Five page letter from William B. Strong to George Sealy making offer 3 ATSF shares for 4 GCSF shares.  Speaks of profit to GCSF in construction of 300 extra miles.  (Rosenberg Library Collection)

3/9/86

Proposed merger speculation rumored that G.C.&S.F. shareholders will receive “a handsome dividend” on their stock.  Other than the fact that the company “will lose its identity as peculiarly a Galveston enterprise—owned and controlled by Galveston capital—no further detriment than this, which merely involves a question of local pride. . .”  [Editor was wrong.  In later years, from ATSF perspective, it made no difference if export traffic went to Houston instead of Galveston.  Had the road remained in local hands, traffic would have stayed in Galveston.  And general office building and staff there also, instead of closing in 1965.  It was so unusual to have a tributary line controlled by widespread group of port residents perhaps without precedent anywhere in the country.  Crocker, Huntington Stanford et al. were a much smaller group.  G.C.&S.F. shareholders comprised nearly all of the top merchants.]  “. . . the increased mileage and business incident to the amalgamation of the two lines would more likely result in the establishment here of even increased facilities.

3/3/56

Contract of Sale – G.C.&S.F. to AT&SF

Letter to assume all bonded indebtedness and stock exchange one for one (!)  G.C.&S.F. having 660 miles in operation and about 40 (to Colorado River in Concho County) under construction, agrees to build 300 more miles.  100 miles Dallas to Paris, 200 miles north from Fort Worth.  ATSF will build to meet in Indian Territory, and agrees to build from a point on the main line to San Antonio, Texas, a distance of about 100 miles, within o e year.  $5.7 million in stock to be presented for exchange by July 1^st.  $2.3 million remainder to be exchanged by Jan. 1^st, 1887, total of $8,000,000.

Note:  SWHA article “Revolutionizing the Texas Cotton Trade 1865-1885” says by Oct. 1883, local investors had sunk almost $7,500,000 into the G.C.&S.F.  Footnote Read & G.C.&S.F. Minute Book.

[Note:  March 22, 1933 letter from George Sealy advising that “several of the signers of this instrument (3-15-86 author try to sell) repudiated it, although ultimately it proved to be the foundation of their fortunes.]

[Who repudiated?  That must be an interesting story.]

3/20/86

Interview with John R. Hixie says Boston syndicate backing AT&SF is “of the old Puritan stock, and their property has been handed down to them through generations.”  Speculates they will help Galveston get deep water.

“It is the great problem of transportation now agitating this country, that commerce and trade will as naturally seek the nearest water outlet, as water will, by the laws of nature, seek its level.  The old idea of the longest haul for the railroads is being rapidly exploded by the demands of the producers of this country, who demand cheap and quick transit for their products as the only means of a return.  The price of our export product in Europe will not justify a long haul, and when our products have to be hauled across the continent by rail to reach the seaboard, the profits of the producer are thus consumed.  Thus you can see the necessity of reaching a tidewater outlet, not only for the Atchison System, but all of its eastern and northern connections. . .  It will place Galveston as the nearest accessible seaport to some five or seven other states and territories the products of which will naturally be diverted this way as the nearest outlet.  You can see, too, what an immense influence this will bring to bear in helping Galveston get deep water . . .  It will also give Galveston what she needs – a diversity of trade; and instead of depending solely upon cotton, grain elevators and provision houses will have to be built here to accommodate the accumulation of exports that will pour in from Kansas and other markets when the connection is established . . .

3/30/86

Contract “In explanation and amendment of, and to carry into effect, the agreement made March 3, 1886, it is agreed as follows:  (Technicalities, do not appear significant amendments)

4/8/86

Stockholder resolution approving sale, dissolving pool contract dated June 3, 1883 and listing shares owned by certain named stockholders. 

[Note:  analysis of that 1883 document will indicate total shares then outstanding, I think.]

4/20/86

George Sealy elected a director in the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe.

6/20/86

Long article stating benefits to Galveston of railroad combination.  “She is destined to become a mighty highway over which will flow the wealth of nations.”

6/4/86

Advertisement – Public Sale of town lots at Ballinger, Texas.  Western terminus of line.  “They will at once establish shops and round house.”  [not done, road shortly pressed onto San Angelo.]

11/23/86

“What part will the Galveston of the future play as a terminal point on the great Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway System, of which the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe is now a part?”

[Same page contains an extremely well written obituary for Charles Francis Adams, Sr.  Last line reads “But what is history but a long tragedy of failure to avert potential or impending evil by doing the right thing at the right time?”]

[Ironic that these two things would be on the same page.  In the contract of sale, George Sealy could easily have placed a clause requiring maintenance of shops and management at Galveston in perpetuity (for Texas lines).  But would this have made any difference in helping keep Galveston’s vitality?  What was more important, local payroll or tonnage shipped or perhaps a clause requiring that 75% of traffic southbound on mainline would come to Galveston instead of any competing port, i.e., Houston?  Houston’s advantage would become glaringly obvious after 1900 hurricane.  It is 50 miles inland.  In year 2000, Houston’s threat is congestion of rail traffic.  UP-SP merger meltdown in late 1990s was perhaps a harbinger of things to come.  Why doesn’t BNSF give more favor to Galveston—is deep water an issue again?]

G.C.&S.F. missed out on East Texas timber boom which would start just 15 years later.  But ATSF helped finance it, and G.C.&S.F. perhaps could not have.  From 1900-1910, John Henry Kirby single largest shipper on ATSF.  And if GCSF stockholders held onto ATSF stock, they participated.  But what effect to them of AT&SF bankruptcy in 1890s?  What did they lose that they would not have lost if independence had been retained?

12/31/86

Railway Gazette reports track now completed to Gainesville, also that GC&SF stockholders assessed $3.00 per share before receiving AT&SF stock.  Reason is cost of building.  $264,000 greater than original estimate.  See 12-1-86 John Sealy letter stating this (to Ballinger).  (See Sealy 12-10-86 letter to stockholders on this subject.)

12/29/86

Letter to George Sealy regarding 12-10-86 3% assessment circular, please furnish copies of contract of sale, letters, agreements, etc., and other pertinent facts.

By:  W. L. Moody, H. Kempner, H. Rosenberg, Walter Gresham, Wm. H. Euclare?

6/12/87

First through Santa Fe train, Galveston to Kansas City.

6/17/87

“The New West” – Galveston as the coastal outlet for lands between the Rockies and the Mississippi.

6/20/87

Well written report on a ride north in a sleeping car to Kansas City.