The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-28
GOOD STOCK At
BEDROCK PRICES.
WHAT LOUIS SLOSS. WHEN HE
WAS IN WASHINGTON.
NEEDED MOST.
FOR INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE.
IT WAS Nor NECESSARY TO TELL
WAsSERMAN WHO WOULD
Buy IT.
FOR INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE.

| When millionaires commence to fight
| the chink of coin or its equivalent in the
rustling of valuable paper is very likely to
be heard, and it is just this which lends
| greatest interest to the controversy be-
tween Max Wasserman and Louis Sloss
now pending before Judge Trout.
! Wasser man admitted on the stand that
he had never worked for money in his life.
| He was born rich, and he is still rich, and
he tells of the dividends which he collected
and of those which are still owing to him
with an off-hand manner. Louis Sloss is
| still richer, and he listens to Wasserman's
testimony with a smile. But it was in
turning over the books of the Alaska Com
mercial Company that the wealth appeared
IN the case; it was mainly in dividends
but such dividends as would make the
stock gilt-edge indeed.
| The dividends included those numbered
from % to 43, and were paid in the years
1882 to 1892. when the Alaska Commercial
Company was in the hevdav of its pros
perity. The dividends were paid on stock
of par value of $500, and were as follows:
November, 1882, 20 per cent; March. 1883,
$50; November, 1888, rs; April, 1884, %
November, 1884, 20; April, 1855 20; Novem,
Der, 1885, IS; April, 1856, 80; November, 1886,
50; MARCH, 1887, 80; November, 1887, IS;
1889, 40; November, 1889, 80; March, 1890,
So April, 1890, %; November, 1890, 40;
March, 1891, 20; November 1891, so; Febru-
ary 1892 %; May, 1892, %.
AS will be seen, in no year was there less
than two dividends, and the lowest divi-
dend declared is Is per cent. In one year,
in month of each other, and all three big
percentages In that year the stock paid
lis per cent of its par value and in no
year did the earnings fall below 40 per cent.
In the ten years the immense capital stock
of the company was rolled over and over,
and this in spite of the fact that there was
a surplus fund on hand, amounting at one
time to over $2,000,000.
| Examination of books and papers, stock
certificates and dividends consumed the
morning session, and it was not until after
| 2 o. clock that Max Wasserman, the plain
| tiff, finally took the stand. He was called
to state his case, and was the first witness
of Importance who has yet been ex-
amined.
By Mr.. Wasserman's testimony it ap-
| peared that he represented what Mr.. Sloss
then termed dormant interest in the
| Alaska Commercial Company. That is he
held shares of the stock, but did none of
the actual work of an active partner, and
appeared in its transactions only two or
three times year when he came to collect
his ample dividends. He owned 1400
shares of the stock. 1t was the odd 400
shares of this holding which he turned
over to Mr.. Sloss. For what purpose he
turned this stock over to the senior mem
Der of the firm can be drawn from the tes-
rinony only by inference.
Mr.. Sloss had told him he wanted cheap
| no
new leases. Mr.. Sloss was then in Wash
| lngton trying to secure from the Congress
of 1888 a renewal of the leases from the
Russian and the United States govern
ments, allowing his company to take seals
in the sealing waters of Boring Sea. What
Mr.. Sloss was going to do with this cheap
stock was point which caused much legal
i sparring between the attorneys, and
numerous rulings by the court, but it was
finally ascertained that Mr.. Sloss wished to
be able to sell it at bedrock prices to the
influential men whom he met at Washing
ton.
The price was put at $50 share, because
Sloss wished TO sell it cheap himself, or at
least so cheap that the dividends would
soon bring back its value into the pockets
of the owner. Mr.. Wasserman had asked
who these influential people were who
were going to buy stock at bedrock prices
and then help secure the new leases, but
he was told that it was not necessary that
he know everything. He also remarked
that $50 was not by any means the value of
the stock, but he was told that at all haz-
ards the influential people must have their
stock cheap.
The difference between $50 and the real
value of the stock was his sacrifice as a
| dormant" shareholder, but this bit of
information was not received until, in their
efforts on the one side to stop it and on
the other side to have it spoken, the op-
posing attorneys had become very deter
mined.
Some letters which had passed between
the Itigants were read, and some material,
if conflicting, statements were secured from
them. The first letter was from Mr. Was
serman to Mr.. SIoss, asking that as the
negotiations had fallen through he take
back the note for $32, 900 which he had
paid Wasserman for his 400 shares and
transfer the same back again to the origi-
nal owner. To this came the answer that
the shares had been sold to Mr.. Sloss, and
he saw no reason why they should be re-
conveyed to him.
It was also intimated that at the time
when the shares were sold the future of
the company was speculative one and
that $50 was good price for the stock, and
| Wasserman had been glad to take it at the
time. 1t is true, Wasserman says, there
was no actual agreement between them re-
garding the sale, but he says there was an
implied obligation on the part of Sloss to
reconvey them should he not use them for
the purposes for which they were trans
ferred. Mr.. Wasserman then wrote once
more, demanding the shares, and Offering
SlosS' note in payment, but 1t was no use,
and since then Mr.. Wasserman has had
neither stock nor dividends from the 400
shares that should have been sold at bed
rock prices to influential people.