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.