CanÌƒon City record. [volume] (CanÌƒon City, Colo.) 1883-192?, 1900-03-22
Reply to Hr. Maupin.
GEN. Jos. H. MAUPN,

There appeared in the Clipper, Of
March 18th, an open letter addressed
to me, which from the questions
therein propounded would indicate
that you expected a reply from me.
You refer to letter of mine print
cd in the Times, talso in the RECORD,
and say that | travelled out of my
way 10 make mention of your name,
and that since have seen fit to let
down the bars you feel at liberty to
frisk and caper in the fresh green
pastures of newspaper controversy.
Certainly, Mr.. Maupin, caper to your
hearts content. Ii man controls
newspaper pasture, az | understand
you do the Clipper, he certainly ought
to be permitter to frisk and gambol
up and down its front page to his
hearts content. II was not my in
tention in my open letter to take
your name in vain, and | believe upon
a careful rereading of that letter you
will find that the only mention made
of you ia that when our ordinance was
pending before the council last Nay
you appeared and resisted its passage,
and you yourself admit this in your
letter addressed to me and toss bou-
quets at yourself for SO doing. OF
course it is entirely possible that you
are the unknown author of the recent
communications appearing in the
Clipper over the signature e. E.
and that you, therefore, take excep-
tions TO the statement in my letter
that did not care TO enter into a
newspaper controversy with anyone
who saw fit to attack the integrity of
the city council over a fictitious
name. | had hardly supposed you
we're the person but mayhap | was
mistaken. II SO, this furnishes a
ready explanation for your appear
ance in type. If you can find any
further reference to yourself in that
letter OF mine than the one hereto
fore referred to you will certainly
have to turn on it q much stronger
light than it has been the custom Of
the Slater company to furnish to the
city of late.
Mr. Maupin, | think most of the
people of Canon City by This time
know that you have a block. 1t is
not tho only block in Canon City, but
fer the sake OF your feelings am
perfectly willing to admit that it is a
very handsome little structure. |
cannot however, see where the peo-
pie are interested or their inalienable
rights affected by any dispute BE-
tween you and me as to the particular
point near this building where shall
set ! pole. - as
After abou; two columns Of per-
sonal preliminzries you say, "Now
with this permit me to ask you few
simple questions which / trust you
will answer yes or no, thereupon, say
first, Is ii not fact that you own
and hold in your possession Sll, 600
worth Of the capital stock of the
local company which makes you the
largest individual stockholder in ity'
No. General. do not believe tha,
own ll,o00 worth of the capital
stock Of the local company, though |
do believe that own 100 shares OF
the 5000 Of its capital stock, and |
further believe that you know this
fact as well as anybody else. | wish
it we're worth 1000, but fear it is
not. And apropos of this question
of yours and answer of mine. let me
ask you IL as attorney for the COM
pany you have not constantly advised
the officers TO refuse 10 transfer to
me upon the books Of the company
single share of this stock which by
your question you practically sdmi,
belongs to me? Stock bought in the
open market and properly assigned
to me. And, further, let me ask you
If when you advised the officers to
refuse to transfer this stock to me
and presented proxies from the
parties to whom your company issued
it, TO represent them at your meet
ings until such time as it should be
transferred, you did not further ad-
wise them to deny me admission to
the meetings and participation in its
affairs? You ask if l have Sill 900
worth of the capital stock of your
local company. | say, no, because II
is not worth that amount Of money,
and ask you If the company has
ever paid in the whole number of
years of its existence one single cent
OF dividends upon this 100 shares OF
stock.
You try to lead the people to be-
lieve that because syorr company has
5000 shares of that stock, (par value
of $40 each), and $4,000 in bonds
outstanding, that, by my owning
100 shares of stock and $4,000
worth of bonds, i, therefore, have
control of your company, when you
know as matter fact, both a.
business man and lawyer, that the
bonds have nothing more to do with
the controlling of the company than
If they did not exist. They are ex-
ac,ly like promissory ncte secured
by mortgage, and the true state of
facts is, as you know, that | have
100 shares of stock out the total Of
5000, and am not even PERMITTED to
have this stock appear on the books
of your company, but have been COM
PEELED 10 bring suit in the courts to
4 -. q A1A