The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-04-11

hung for some time, during which I had many
interviews with MT: Searles touching this sub
ject. He kept putting me off after frequent in
quiries as to when this pool was 10 be formed,
and one day told me that he had reconsidered
the matter, and thought that they would not
carry it out. To this replied to Mr.. Searles
thatI considered his action contemplate. l
rose from my seat, left the Office, and have
never seen Mr.. Searles since.
This was followed by long line of ques-
tioning on the same subject, in which refer
ence was made to G. A. Spreckels' desire
to make money in the sugar business,
either on the side of the trust or as an op-
position. The matter OF correspondence
BY witness with his brother, Rudolf Spreck-
els, was inquired into. This correspond
ence referred to the formation of the pro-
posed pool, and the matter of G. A. Spreck-
els investing in it and heading off the OPP
position. In this connection Mr.. Short
ridge asked:
Did you inform your brother that Mr.. Searles
or those associated with him would carry STOCK
for you to your great profit, because you hao
been instrumental in preventing new COM
pany starting in Philadelphia?
1t is possible that did.
Did YOU at any time say to Mr.. Searles that II
you were not taken care of you would go to
California and get letters which would be
damaging to the Searles & Havemeyer inter-
ests?
| did not. AS stated before, never made
any demand on Searles or Havemeyer.
The matter of an accounting for the
81, $50 900, received by c. A. Spreckels for
his father from the sale of the sugar REIN
cry stock, was again referred to. In this
connection the witness stated 500, 600 600
HAD passed through his hands while he
acted as vice president and general man.
ager of the Philadelphia Refinery.
The witness held in his hand written
l. / 4 do frnv, tnn
books of the Spreckels Sugar Refinery
Company by its secretary, Mr.. Uhler. The
document was not submitted for record,
but the witness gave the following figures
as the substance of the report:
Received by C. A. Spreckels for stock of the
company sold, $2,250, 600. Discussed for
Claus Spreckels, 1906, 706, paid into the cor
specified amount of So ,000,000; paid to the
United States Trust Company $4,000 for the
redemption of certain eollaterais placed there
by Claus SpreckelS and owned by him; sent to
San Francisco for Claus Spreckels liabilities
there, 1850 900; commissions paid for a loan
of 81, 100000, $4,000; amount which c. A.
Spreckels said he never received but which
was transferred on the books of the company
to the credit of Claus Spreckels, $3.50, 900; paid
to the United States Trust Company as commits
sion for acting as trustees, $500, making a
total of So, 164 ,206. This left shortage of
$85 794, which the witness said was nearly all
expended in the payment of interest on various
debts owed by Claus Spreckels.
In answer to questions concerning this
accounting the witness said:
The S75 900 commission paid out for the
securing of a loan OF 81 900, 900 was an abso-
Lutte necessity at that time, and nv father fully
approved OF my action in the matter.
After more questions and answers to the
same purpose the matter of adjournment
was brought up and caused considerable
argument on both sides. Mr.. Shortrid ge
desired to continue the examination of G..
A. Spreckels this morning at 10 O'clock
and to have the case of the SANDER sui as
signed and the unanswered questions in
the deposition submitted for the ruling of
the court, and in that way dispose of
the evidence OF the. present witness
before the deposition of Claus Spreckels
should be taken in hand. He suggested
that he and Mr.. Ach should meet this
morning at $50, or between the hours of
II NJ. and 2 P. NJ, to agree on the proposed
mode of procedure and apply for an assign
ment of the case and hearing of the points
of law on the unanswered questions.
Attorney Ach declined the proposition,
and in doing so said:
It viii not suit me at all. will proceed &C.
cording to arrangement TO take the deposition
of Claus Spreckels until such time as the exam
inatiOn of C. A. Spreckels can be resumed. l
desire TO question Claus Spreckels concerning
DOOhS, ACCOUNTS duQ 16tleTS connected Win the
Philadelphia Sugar Refinery Company, and l
propose to do SO at the time set-Thursday,
April II, at 10 AN.
This brought the matter to a point
where some kind of arbitration was neces-
sary. Notary Levy, who issued the
subpenas and swore the witness, was sent
for. When he appeared Mr.. Shortridge
stated his position and request. The no
tary responded by adjourning the inquiry
until 10 o'clock this morning.
Mr.. Ach made a vigorous protest and
stated that he should expect Claus
Spreckels at his office at the same hour
He threatened to bring proceedings for
contempt if the witness fails to appear
with the books, accounts and letters called
for in the subpoena. He made the same
threat against Mr.. Shortridge and Notary
Levy.