Daily Los Angeles herald., 1884-01-19
The Other side Of the Park Contro-
verBy.


To THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD
Sir. The case Of Hollenbeck ct al va.
Niles ct al is a controversy to determine
the legality Of deed Of q portion OF
the Agricultural Park grounds, executed
by l. N. Moore as trustee, to the benefit
Charles Of the trust. l am simply one Of
the defendants in the said action, and
have just had my attention called to
lengthy statement in your columns
upon the merits of this controversy
That portion Of the statement directed
against myself and co-deiendants has
come. no doubt, from the pen, or at tho
dictation Of one Of the most interested
Of the plaintiffs. While 1 do most
emphatically deprecate the policy Of the
plaintiffs in thus taking the case from the
forum into which they have brought
myself and my Numerous co-defendants,
still am as ready an as willing to vim
dieate my position before the tribunal Of
the reading public, as 1 am before the
court from which the plaintiffs have
chosen to appeal before trial This be-
ing my position and waiviDg my right to
ignore an an ,nymous aspersion amount-
Jag almost to libel, will, as briefly
as possible, review some Of the leading
features of the case.
Throughout the whole statement to
which l have referred there runs the
silly effort to hoodwink the reader into
the conviction that the Agricultural
Park grounds are, or were intended to
become the property of District Agricul-
tural Society No. o. Whea the mort
gage Of VIM. O'Melveny nron those
lands was foreelosed and the property
bought in at fJreciose sale by |. N.
Moore iu 1880, became rs much the
private property Of I. N. Moore as
though it had been a city lot, and never
impressed with the characteristic OF cor
poration properly. In this position i.
was found by few citizens, who thought
they could put the properly to the use
for which it was originally intended, and
accordingly agreed together to raise
funds to purchase it from Moore. Some
Of the persons who contributed their
money to this end were members Of the
Sixth District Society, and many were
not. The representations upon which
men were induced to contribute to the
fund were that the title ould vest in
the purchasers and be kept forever free
from corporation control The unsav-
ory reoollections of the old Agricultural
society, considered from a financial
standpoint, were reason enough for re-
quiring this guarantee. But there were
not wanting in the new organization
men whose sole aim seemed To be
to subject the property to the con
troll and implied ownership OF the new
corporation. OF this nature was the act
Of the Board Of Directors in proceeding
to elect three trustees to whom should
be conveyed the property Of men who
had indirectly, and directly, too, the
guarantee Of many Of the persons for
warding this scheme that the society, as
such, should not control this property.
was not present at the meeting that
evolved this scheme, but certainly re-
corded my protest against the plan as
soon as / had chance to speak. did
this in the interest Of the proprietors
who were not members, ~ we'll as in the
interest Of those who were, but who
knew nothing Of the scheme that aimed
to divest them ultimately Of their lands
by statutory limitation. From January,
1880, to April, 1882, the title remained
in Moore, although the purchase price
had all been paid in the Summer of 1880.
Finally it was determined among the
owners to have the trust discharged, and
accordingly Mr.. Hollenbeck, Mr.. Childs
and myself were chosen a committee to
attend to this branch Of the business.
In this capacity we represented the own
ers Of the land or tenants in common.
We had large discretion, but of course
could take no instructions from the
Sixth District Society as such (for that
corporation was ever an absolute stran-
ger to the titlel, but only from the per-
sons whose interest we represented as
individuals. For more than q year va
rious plans had been discussed. Finally
the one ultimately adopted was formu.
lated by the committee at . meeting
held in the parlors Of the First National
Bank. The memorandum there com.
piled was taken by me 10 the office oI
Messrs. Glassell, Smith & Patton, by ar.
rangement, as attended to most Of the
executive work of the Committee. The
deed was there drawn up, and before il
was signed was submitted to each OF the
following gentlemen holding representa-.
tive positions ~. members Of the Sixth
District Society's Board, viz: Mr.. Hol-
lenbeck, Mr.. Lichtsnberger and Mr..
Childs-the latter gentleman very c,ur.
teously giving an evening at his home
for the purpose Of carefully considering
the plan. It was further submitted. to
| persons interested who were not men,
bers OF the Board, among whom were
Mr.. Brodrick and Mr.. Ferguson. Hav-
| ing thus passed inspection and met moth
ing but bland approval, it was signed by
l. N. Moore and recorded as the harmo-
nious act and will Of the various own
ers; and by this contamination no
amount of corporate thimble- rigging can
ever cucumber, or squander, or compass
the con6scation of this property--for it
is private property dedicated to o use
for liked period, and in no manner sub
ject to corporate control.
The anonymous rhetorician whom
am called upon To review has some very
crude ideas Of corporate power. He
speaks OF the contributors to the pur.
chase price of the lands in question 81
subscribers TO the shares Of stockr'
And again, that "at meeting of the
shareholders seventy three shares were
represented" was not aware, before
the appearance Of this learned disquisi.
| tion, that two or more persons BY pur.
chasing undivided interests in o city
l Int okxrt a ~,I
that their several interests became
shares Of stock" 20 am indebted to
this controversy for this scrap of infor.
nation. But the plaintiffs, in their
brief, under the head of
MATTERS PERSONAL"
Gave some interesting "reminiscences,
and beg to follow their example. Mr..
Barretto, who is represented as sort
Of suffering Patriot, was really made
Pre.ident the past year only by not vot-
| ing for the other candidate, thus foist.
| ing himself into position. The Board
Il happen to be . member) did not, q
stated, forward a request 10 the Gov.
ernor to have him rsappointed-unless,
indeed, that Mr.. B. considers himself the
Beard; on the contrary, Mr.. B, sought
this Endorsement and failed to get it.
And while reviewing mistatsments il
might be - well to notice that Mr.. Fer
| guson never was = member Of the Sixth
District Soeiety's Board. But there
were few sccentricities in the admin,
istration Of the association under Mr..
Barresto that did not give universal sat
isfaction. For instance, nearly $200(
was expended at the late fair, in the facs
of limitation Of 500 by the Board; il
was not considered modest, even though
It might be fair. to appoint committee,
to judge of ones own exhibits in tn,
face Of protests; it was also slightly
against public morals and policy to sci
the privilege Of gambling upon the
grounds. These are some Of the reasoni
why the compiler of the plaintiffs brie
wss mistaken about the action of th'
Board upon the question Of Endorsement
Finally. viii stale, without fear O
contradiction, that IL would be nsws K
i ou~nv ~ tha vx1sr ts{r~ l., <b;. s~ksc~ a.