New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-12-05

they were before II was perfectly apparent that bona
nee buysn of spsrioss sock were entitled Only 10
What they bought place on the books of the Come
perry. They hsd right to claim spyth'Dg more.
The con ts mao in ali decided against the Com
psBy. He thought iha, they should a, sny rate sc-
cept ibs law and place them elves 10 position ia
fch they could be Just.
Mr. Bradford said that he ls~ itsen stated il wss
pared for the purpose of sliosing of & csnoronisa
M Bukley exp Sinsd why he inssru oted M. Bs.t,
II was important that gentlemen stOald know why
Mr. Belts Wa so warmly interested IN the welfare of
spurious stock. While he was 10, he Sad he you'd
,ay few words. aud he proceeded to make
sue. ch. He On ted scmeth ng which he bad said
az q former meeting. after the brokers bad de-
cIsrd that the New York Judges were on their side
and .,ep offered 20 take 30 Z ecu. their claims.
He had tb. n expressed bis surpri'e that New-Yors
iusree stood a. 30 & cent discount. TO talk about
cornuruse was he said &C, the part of frightened
children. There hsd been Islk about widows, but he
conlc no. conceive that they who came here from
Wall street were talking mostly Tor WIDOWS II nor,
TIE &C omolices OF Robert Schuyler these men hst
been biz dupes He thought tbsTe was bu, one course
10 pursu. and that was - maintain their ground. lie
haa not lost ell faith 10 men; he believed there could
be honest Ia ~yeTs and honest Judges lie od not DE-
lieve tLs- their ri hts go imported because Ot
TIE Justice OF Juds anc that II was OF no use 70 al
tempt 10 OBJ Ain justice.
Mr. Belts averfed his faith in tie honesty OF the
NewYo>k Judges; but it was no: ques tion OF echnl-
csl Law: il was question of justice Foe object OF thus
holders was 10 give the Company an opportunity 70
settle individually and be knew OF h,nest men who
would come forwsrd and take the stock when the
Company had put Themselves in position where they
could make settlement.
Dr. Foot- Of New Haven rose amid loud calls OF
uue s,iou but he said he not TO be coughed down
in that way he wanted to De heard. lie
had been told thai this movement was
comb alton between TIE Boston stockholders aud the
bogus stockholders but that did not seem TO be the
Gaze. DR.. tOOte proceeded 70 intimate that be nsd
not very great n6Gence n tie ndics of Nsw-fork
Civ He cited the late Trial vi Judge SSusr'. But
he had more confidence in the judges foo II the rural
districts Who constituted q msjOri'y OF the Court OF
Appeals. The gentle0lsn Mr. Bettsl represented
Kftcr UNI ano Bement the very men who we're tue
sriencs of Robert Schuyler. They need not be in
bu1ry 10 sccept this law. Ii the Legislature would
Pass this law for the bogus st ckhoders they wo1,d
* eId { g time for the genuine stockholders lie
thought it would be time enough 10 May 10 pass upon
fis stock His stock was low enough now bat 6
comm mise would re as bsd as thro wing 1t away.
He thought that the fact of the bogus Stock
holders irving to put of the decision OF the Court OF
Appess was oroof that they were fearful OF the result
There was no evidence before thea that compromise
could be msde even if they Should accept tbs law lie
would be willing to trust the BOsrd of Directors wsicd
they now had but ne not confident that the bogus
stockholders would not replace them by new Bosrd
next May and then have the whole power IN their
owp hands,
TIE question yss then taken on Mr.. Bradford 8 mo
ton 10 oostpone with the folio wing result 9OO3 shares
ia II g affirmative TO 6976 in the negative.
The meeting Immediately adjourned.