152 FEDEEAL EEPOETEB. �ment of the canal with the political changes in the state gov- ernment. This bas been always a subject of regret to those interested in the financial success of the work, and to the consequent lack of a fixed and stable polioy in its manage- ment bas been attributed the disappointment of the expecta- tions of the projectors. The evils arising from the coutrol of the state over the management of the canal have been the frequent theme of comment in the reports of its ofQcers, and the ground of applications to the legislature for relief. But this 18 not an evil which the courts can remedy. It existed at the time when complainant purchased bis bonds, and lias always been an element in the estimate of their value. �If, however, the complainant had produced proof to estab- lish the abuses alleged in bis bill to bave grown out of this political connection, and had shown, as alleged, that the rev- enues of the corporation were being squandered in paying persons kept in its service for political reasons, and not really necessary for its business, we sbould bave no doubt of the duty of the court to interpose to prevent so gross an abuse of a trust. For the corporation being insolvent to the extent that for years at a time its revenues bave barely met its work- ing expenses, it is manifest that the property is beld by the corporation as trustee for its creditors, and the utmost good faith, economy, and prudence are to be exereiaed in its man- agement. So that, if the allegation of paying useless em- ployes had been proved, such an abuse of this trust would have been made apparent as would bave required the inter- vention of the court, as the only protection left to the boud- holders against a faithless trustee of a property which is their only security. But we do not find this allegation established by the proof. The complainant bas urged upon the attention of the court the falling off in the net income of the canal, and the increase of expenditure in proportion tio receipts since 1875, and charges that these are evidence of extravagance and mismanagement. The fact that the net income of i;he canal, -which, in the years 1871, '72, '73, '74, and '75, had been over $200,000 in each of those years, fell in 1876 to ����
