New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-03-11
IAr'TACKTNG THE GAS TRUST.
MORE CHARGES AGAINST TIE CHICAGO
MONOPOLY.
ACCUSATIONS OF FRAUD MADE on BEHALF OF THE
sCHUBAKT ESTATE OF TITS CI1Y--A SUIT TO
acI A>Inr IRANSrER CF SIOCk-AL-

sEI ASIDE A TRANSFER CT sfoch-Al~
LFGtD VI THops OF THE TRUST
Tbron oh the courtesy Of the Newly ork attor-
news of Henry Schubart's estate lH@ TRIBUNE
has been placed in possession OF the bill OF com
nloint recently filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County. H. against the great monopoly known
as tie Chicago Gas Trust. The case in many re-
spects is similar TO that of the Hoffman estate,
which was settled some months ago by the pay
1nent by the Gas Trust of the sum of $50, 900
for $50 900 worth of stock in the Chicago Cas-
light and Coke Company. In the case referred
to- however, the aim to recover the value
of stock impaired by the combination, and the
bill comprehensive and so unanswerable
that the Trust made no show of opposing it, but
at once proposed and made settlement The
Schubart differs in that it asks, primarily to
have set aside an exchange of Gdslight and Coke
Company stock for Gas Trust stock, a transfer
which, it is alleged, Henry Schubart led by
fraud to agree to.
THE PARTIES TO THE SUIT.
The compliments in the bill are Matilda Schu-
bart, Aaron Schubart, Meyer Hecht and Israel
Steinlart. all of Ncw-York and executors of the
will of Henry Schubart. The defendants are the
Chicago Gaslight and Coke Company, Sidney A.
Kent Columbus K. Cummings, Charles T. Yerkes,
Peter A. b. Widener, William L.. Elins, William
w. Gibbs and others, among the names OF whom
will be recognized many who are identified WIN
the Philadelphia syndicate which has 50 hlm q
hold on gas companies and street-car franchises
i'm various large cities of the country.
The comp.ainants allege, firstly, that they
have found among the assets of the estate Al
shares of stock in the Chicago Gas Trust; that,
for long time the owner oil 5S3 shares OF stock
Of the Chicago Gaslight and Coke COMPANY,
which, by several acts of Assembly, had been
authorized TO issue its capital stock to the amount
of $4,000 O0O that it had actually issued stock
10 the amount Of 81. 9S4, 200, and had acquired
property valued at least al 600 that the as
sets of the company, when Schubart owned the
5s5 shares of stock, We're worth between
$4,000, 600 and 100000, and continued to be
worth that sum up to and including FEBRUARY
According to the bill, on or about that date
the Gaslght and Coke Company conceived
scheme to undcrvalue the property of SAID com
panv and its business for the purpose of forming
q Gas Trust. of which it to be a member;
Soon after Schubart received Circular slened
by F.. T., Watkins secretary, announcing that an
offer had been received from responsible persons
of s37 so cash for each share of SD, ana INA,
the Board Of Directors had anonymously dcc,Itd
fbe following reasons: First. the completion OF
The plant Of the Equitable GasliGht ana fussI
COMPANY which had already ip nCga sru
gle for the maintenance OF the nuslhcsS ana d
probability of lower and Improbable prices sec
ond. the necessity of going to great expense on
account of the increased demand for gas; lastly,
the equivalence of the price To the value OF the
property. irrespective Of the depressing tendency
Of competition.
WE'RE THERE CORRUPT PURPOSES.
These reasons the compliments charge, were
pntrilc and were issued for the corrupt purpose
of influencing the stockholders to sell their STOCK.
The directors then employed all sorts OF
agencies for the purpose of buying up tie stocks;
among others Brown Brothers & Co.. Of l'hl adei-
mia who issued circular offering So 20 per
Share Of s25. Mr. .Schuhart wrote TO O ST
for advice and received from Secretary Wells a
letter the complaint says, in which the price bld
nv Brown Brothers falsely represehU'q as
being goa o f ana dmcct tors furher represented
tbat by the organization of the Trust the working
expenses of the several companies wouIa pS re-
duced. and that il would be possible therefore,
soon after Mr. Schubart learned that the affairs
Of several companies had poen wUano orranizaton
had secured the controlling interest I'D the Gas
light and Coke Company. and DelIeV' ne , ime
trnthfulness of ell the statements mace 70 MN,
and believing that he could not hold his oso
shares against the great combination; Scn n"al
finally resolved MAKE the exchange OF 'ht s'"H-
Un received under date Of June 20, 1851 Al
shares Of Gas Trust. -. 10.
The oompainants now make me POM; or u,.as
though the Gas Trust held con'rollng interest," res,
IN tho several companies il did not own the prop
critics and that it had insured rs stoc. Wi,nouV
the ownership of any property NE etc ~ CONTROL
the Gas comnanies Of Chicac9 ana Us .is as
unon some unknown ran. which N" na,n'lns al
snrt. if discovered. would b" found 70 De iil'N'i
and contrary to public policy.
,oTFSTTON ABOUT STOCK VALUES.
Another point made is that the Gas Trust
people represented the case 10 be that 'he s,o'h
of the various companies was merely depoN''eu
with them. and was held security for the shares
70 Cas- Trust issued; that however. the stock
~ several Of the companies was by no means
relatively the equivalent Of that OF tho Gas
light and Coke Company because thoSs , co,1-
n;oS had never declared dividends ana, thati
Ial-.f ~ ,be stockholders Of the Gas-Hght ana
C"ke Company were defrauded by the transaction
in this manner, too $50 -. 49, ,,uptous
,othod Of mortpacing which was so clearly set
forth in the Holman bill. namely to mor'ga iee
at So 600 900 property for siOoou;VvTo, ma
tbore vas money in the treasury. ana thr. "iioi5
action was unnecessary: to declare uANIuo"1