The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1891-07-16
The Clifton Forge Company and It's
Enemies

eUtNSNCf.
companies and dissatisfied stockholders
The text of the production is the ccm-
plant made by some of the stockholders
in several land company organizations
against the management thereof and
the promoters who launched the scheme
The discussion of the subject thus sug
gested, however, is general and very
ably presented by our contemporary
1t is worthy of perusal by all who i'm
agine they have grievance in this res
spect, or may think they have not been
treated with fairness 1t is an easy matter
when results do not correspond with too
confident calculations, to argue ones
self into the belief that a wrong has
the facts are not considered, and all the
conditions attending the enterprise not
understood because of inattention, care
lessness or possibly stupidity.
Since the article appeared in the Vim
dictator, it has become publicly known
that some of the dissatisfied stockhold-
ers have instituted some kind of Legal
proceedings against the Clifton Forge
Company. The bill of complaint we
have not seen, and therefore cannot
state its provisions. 1t was not sur
prise. 1t had been whispered about for
several months, that some such proceed
ing would be instituted. Nor has it
given the management of the company
any serious concern. Probably the best
way to reach a solution of such CON
troversies or differences is through the
courts, and reach it after all legal RENE
dies have been exhausted by an appeal
to the court of last resort, That. likely.
will be the course of this contention.
and the sooner it is brought about the
better We do not care here and at
this time to discuss the animus of some
of the parties prominent in this moves
lnent That may be appropriate later
on. If necessary to clear understand
ing of the motives and malice which
unsparingly. When men seek publicity
in the courts, they invite criticism.
They challenge motives and provoke
controversy. 1t is not often IN this
country that such persons do not get
what, and more than, they sometimes
want.
AT the annual meeting of the stock
holders, last April, there were state
ments made by dissatisfied stockholders,
not in regular meeting, but in special
gathering. rejecting very seriously upon
the management of the Clifton Forge
Company, which, if they had been true,
should have resulted in criminal prose
cution When the regular meeting was
serious dissatisfaction, and when the
report of the years business was pre-
scented to the full assembly of stock
holders, and read, it was unanimously
adopted. Subsequently a motion was
entered to reconsider that resolution of
acceptance and approval The motion
was unanimously adopted as prelimi-
nary to the appointment of committee
to inquire fully and critically into the
management and the affairs of the COM
pany. This was what was expected by
the management, and they were disap-
pointed when it was not done at first.
instead of motion to adopt the report
without examination and scrutiny
The committee thus appointed was
entirely from the dissatisfied stock
holders, some of whom had been very
severe in their arraignment of the man
agement, but one by one they declined
to serve, alleging this and that excuse
for SO doing. Finally when a committee
was secured, it made hasty and super
fetal examination, and pleading want of
time, selected two experts, and associat-
ed with them one of the management,
the more readily 10 get at the facts.
That committee of experts made an ex-
haustive examination, and reported, in
brief, that there was nothing in the re-
port of the management that should be
changed, Or at least suggested no noditi
cation, and certainly acquitted the man
agement OF any wrong-doing.
Now we learn, the grievance of the
complaint is the promoters-that they
were assigned more of the stock than
they should have had This comes in a
year after the time when such complaint
should have been made, if at all The
prospectus of the company and the con
ditions of subscription were open to
every one who was approached to sub
scribe. When they signed the contract
of subscription it was presumed they
knew what they were doing. There was
no attempt at concealment. The pro-
motors had assumed heavy RESPONSE
bility, and it was not a supposable case
that they would do this for nothing
Those who became stockholders did so
at their own free will. The terms were
printed and the obligations plainly
stated. They were present, or it was
their privilege to be present. and it was
earnestly desired that all should he,
when the lot drawing took place. They
knew that there was but one class of
stock, and each share stood upon the
same ground that any other share did
If there was wrong in the plan and there
was wrong in the relation of the promo
ton to the plan, that was the time, Ger
tainly, to make it known and raise OBJ
jections. Nothing of the kind was done.
No complaint was made until after the
allotment of lots, and not then, except
where a stakeholder was particularly
unfortunate in the lot he drew But no
suggestion of legal proceedings were
ever then made Not until the lull in
lot speculation came, when sales became
restricted-yet all the time assessments
notices were going out-was it that
some of the unlucky began to kick, and
delay and refuse payment. and up to
this time have not met their obligations
And not until the company instituted
legal steps to enforce payment of delin
quent stock, was formal notice given of
legal proceedings on the part of the dis
satisfied, in the form of an injunction
as to the sale Of delinquent stock. Of
course the purpose is broader, but as we
have said, we have not seen the bill of
complaint and consequently do not know
Tho ccopa of the prOcaedino Rut one