6TSWABT V. CHKSa.FEAEE & OHIO CANAL CO. Î53 �$67,144, and that in 1877, '78, and '79 the canal earned no net income at ail, is a matter which, as trustee, the corpora- tion was bound to explain and account for. �The explanation given in its answer, and supported, as viQ think, by the proof , is that in those years the canal so suffered from hostile competition, compelling great reductions in tolls, from the general depression of the business of the country, from the great flood in 1877, and from interruptions caused by strikes of the boatmen, that it was not possible to make the canal yield the revenue of the preceding years. Obliged, as it was, to contend with these obstacles to profitable busi- ness, Bome of which, it is a matter of general notoriety, did interfere wtth the prosperity of all the great works of the country, the complainant bas failed to satisfy us that any better results were possible, or that the deficiency of revenue is necessarily to be attributed to the extravagance or mis- management of the officers of the corporation. Nor would it seem to so appear to the trustees of the mortgage which secures these bonds, nor to the great majority of the bond- holders themselves; for, although the bill has been a year on the files of the court, only one bondholder besides the com- plainant, and he holding but a small amount of bonds, has united in the suit. It is but a very small minority of bond- holders who are asking for the relief prayed for in the bill, and it does not appear that any others believe that the rem- edy now sought would be beneficiai to their interests; and the trustees of the mortgage, who are in no way connected ■with or committed to the present management, and who are as individuals owners of considerable amounts of the bonds, are here in court strenuously opposing the present applica- tion. This attitude of these trustees having a large pecuni- ary interest, having also an important duty and obligation as trustees, and who are familiar with the affairs of the canal, and this apparent indifference to this application on the part of a great majority of the bondholders, is, we think, to be considered by the court in determining whether, under ail the facts of the case, results more beneficiai to the bond- holders might reasonably be expected from the management ����
