Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-05-12
GREAT EQUITY SUIT.
Ex-COngresSman Barr Against
the Plate Glass Deal.
He ALLEGES CONSPIRACY
To Build and Sell the Ford City
Works and Make 100000.
A SINGLE MINORITY MANS KICK
Against the Profitable Pool Pittsburg Has
Lately Yielded.
A SINGLE MINORITY MANS KICK
BE SUES IN UNCLE SANS TRIBUNAL

he SUES in UNCLE SANS TRIBUNAL
A DISPATCH reporter has been cognizan
for some weeks of the fact that existing rip
piles of dissatisfaction were agitsting tht
placidity of the Pittsburg Plate Glass Com
pany's inside workings.
These ripples took turbulent turn yes
terdsy, when bill in equity was filed in
the United States District Court (as the
plaintiff now resides in the far West) by
Sol Schoyer, Jr., with ex-Congressman
Samuel F. Barr, iormerlv of Harrisburg, fol
himself and all others who wish to lawfully
Join therein, as plaintiffs, against the Plate
Glass Company, having for its President
Edward Ford; Artemus Pitcairn, Vice
President Emory L. Ford, Secretary, and
John Pitcairn, Jr., all as defendants
The bill is quite lengthy, containing IL
clauses, which explicitly say the defendants
err as against the Pittsburg Plate Glass
Company (Or rather its minority of stock
holders in carrying on business in the
manner they have since the organization of
the first company at Creighton, some four
or five years ago. The plaintiff, therefore,
prays the Court to come in and
RESTRAIN THE MEsSRs. FORD
ct al from reaping profits not due them in
their actions toward the "small fish" of the
stockholders. In substance it is alleged
about as follows:
J. B. Ford & Sons were the promoters
and organizers of the first Pittsburg Plate
Glass Company at Creighton, which cost
$500, 900, having a monthly production of
900 square feet The marked prosperity
following the building of No. 1 plant, the
facilities being exceptionally well adapted
for the successful manufacture Of plate
glass-better by far than those of any other
company in the United States-induced and
impelled the proprietors to branch out, and
propose to the stockholders that other works
WerG needed.
At the first meeting to consider it there
were few dissenting votes, among which
was that of the defendant, Mr.. Barr. How
ever, the second mill was built at Tarentum,
half mile above the first one, at cost of
100000, with monthly production OF 14O,-
600 square feet.
Readers of THE DISPATCH will remem-
Der how, recently, the majority stockholders
of the company voted to absorb the third
works, at Ford City, with q capacity of
100000 feet per month, at cost of 81 $685.
$50. In this connection now the plaintiff
charges that this is "an exorbitant and
outrageous price," which the stockholders
may be subjected to pay, and that is the
point of argument. Mr.. Barr, the petit
ioner, expects 10 prove that Edward Ford,
Artemus Pitcairn, Emory Ford and John
Pitcairn, Jr., "entered into conspiracy to
build larger plate glass works than the
mill No. 1, which plant they will compel
the Pittsburg company to purchase, at
enormous figures, or this (the defendants)
own price. in order to prevent dangerous
and menacing competition"
WHO HOLD THE bonanza.
The stock is divided up so as to give the
defendants a controlling interest, the Fords',
father and sons, having alone 3, $50 shares;
John Pitcairn, 1000; John Scott, deceased,
1000; Albert E. Hughes, 100; j. h Shields,
$50; William Nelson, 200, and Charles w.
Bachelor 100. Mr. Barr mas about 200.
1t is claimed by him that the parties to the
scheme, being majority, would of course
vote for the purchase OF the new mill at
Ford City-whieh is now partially being
operated-and "a repetition of the Tarentum
scheme will have have. been perfected
j. B. Ford & Co. have proposed to sell
these works to the Pittsburg Plate Glass
Company for $3.50, 900 first mortgage bonds,
and the same amount in capital stock at
par value, with the bonds to mature in three,
four, and five years at 6 per cent The
orator, in his petition, also expects to prove
that the Ford works won't cost over ST.
$40, 900, although he says the people in
question will not give any information as to
the estimate or cost OF them. As the actual
premium on the stock commands 1922 per
share, this shows that the actual cost will
be s., ,96S $50, instead Of 81 800 900, as is said
by the defendant.
All these actions Mr.. Barr sets forth as
being direct threat and menace to compel
the minority of stockholders to accede to
the demands OF the syndicate; and of
course the favorable vote was assured by J.
B. Ford ct al. 1.-The capital stock" it is
alleged, sis to be increased s., $50, 900,
which is
ONLY A SCHEME
To wipe out the minoritv holdings and
compel them to accept any price the major
ity may offer for their stock" In other
words, it is another case Of ''big fish eating
up the little ones"
By the consummation of the deal at the
proposed figures, ,fthe syndicate would, ac-
cording to the allegations. profit over $780,
600, and the point which the plaintiff Mr..
Barr, wants to score is that the Court be
asked that they be made to accept the actual
cost price OF the mill, with such reasonable
profit as the Court may allow to the con-
Etructors. Also that they be asked to ac-
count for all the money alleged to have been
received by them in payment for works No.
2, at Tarentum.
The petition proper is followed by full
statement of the property, real and personal
at Ford City, which was offered 70 the Pitts
burg Plate Glass Company. As a compari-
son. the Howard Glass Works, now in the
course Of construction, is cited, and it will
cost $500, 900, with a production of loo. 900
square Ieet per month. As each square foot
OF glass requires an invested capital in works
OF 50; NO. /, NO. OF the Plttsburg Plate
Glass Company aud the Howard Works
show this proportion exactly. "How, then"
1t is asked, "can the Ford City Works diff.
fer materially from this basis? If it does
not differ, then the Ford City Works did
not cost over 81, ,OOO. 900, and the contractors
estimate OF S647, 900 is very nearly correct"
This is given weight by the following COM
parative figures: The cost OF Mill No. was
S5OO, 900; monthly production, 100, 900 square
feet No. 2, 500, 900; production, lac, 900
feet Ford City, 81. sos, 75O, with only 20O,-
600 feet production, while the Howard cost
$500, 900 and has production OF 100000.
STOCKHOLDERS CRITICISE HIM.
A number Of the stockholders were seen
by a DISPATCH local writer, and their
opinions regarding the matter were both
fo- and against.
s. Boyd, the WOOD street art dealer, is q
ntOnE hOldar ua 4. III