The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1865-07-28

money We are expected to pay in, and
tinterest?o Flli u 7l7t'-1Ti = - ! :
If yen. please state precisely what nd.
vantage we would derive from such
"fnancierfng." ~! gu.t.f4lt 10 3fiefsI.
If nay, please state how you can pay
the the seven per cent. interest you prom
Brlehy, as to the consolidation of gtlIe
United States andn'Pacific Extension
Companies which you admit is a part
of the programme. il5..s -
Our Company has,i say, 90, 900 miles
of wire. You state the capital las OF
the Extension Line (when completed
Will be about 1000 miles long. lb5Wili
run through a country, California,
where another Company is secured fex-
elusive rights for way business by char
ters which have been judiciousfy sus-
tanned by the Courts-and its nominal
capital 1s,to be six and one-half mil
lions, iLtGc 10 I ISl &is. X
Suppose these two stocks beput to-
gether at par, making some ton millions
OF stock in the aggregate It not pos
slble that the contractors or other favor
ed parties may own a majority of the
whole ten millions and not be out of
pocket to the extent of a single dollar I?
Now about the dividend Of four pel'
- - W eAo paul
net earnings. '.s.- 81
Let us look at your proof. You say
that the tftrival companies,'' Western
Union and American, earned in six
months S1,791 900, or TX per cent on
their stock, while the United States Co,
earned Sl7s,S56 or 81 per cent on its
stock. +, mum s1Eslf ~
You further intimate that whereas 40
per cent Of gross earnings is a fair al
lowance for running expenses, and Won
allowed 58H per cent, therefore: the u.
8. dividend was paid from net earningsI
This is your argument.
Let us see what it is worth. You con
eede that the "riyal companies" and the
United States Company covered not
widely different areas. Our Company
generally pays higher salaries and high
er rents than the ittrfvaIs. III Our lines
are mainly on the highway, theirs mnin-
ly on railroads; and their expenses for
Keeping the wires up are relatively
much less than ours. ~ ~ %
Now mark, 40 per cent of their earn
lngs would give; an aggregate of $7l6-
400 for running expenses, while 40 per
cent of our earnings would give but $7I,-
$40 for running expenses, or less than
one-tenth what you concede that it costs
to run the trivial inesw
Again: the sum which you saw it
costs to run the G!rivnl lines ~ land YOU
~ 49, hAOhlJ
times greater than the gross receipts of
our lines for the same period!
Canyon pretend to any man of COM
mon sense with these, your own figures,
lying before you and him, that YOU
made dividend from net earnings3 Ii
you did not divide net earnings did you
not divide u portion of the money nc
cruing from stock subscription What
other resources can your company
haVe2 % ''-
What motive can there be for livid-
ing anything but net earnings?
Can you show that Stockholders who
took stock as an Investment viii be
benefited by receiving n portion OF
their own subscriptions back under tie
name of "dividends?" 1,s,.r ., 81
And If honest stockholders derive no
advantage from such a policy, is not
the inference, irresistless that, there Is a
ring somewhere, whose interests arc
not identical with the interests of the
rest OF ttle Company +
A q. S. SToCKHoLDER.