New-York tribune., 1901-07-29
SELECTIONS FROM THE MAIL.
REPLY To I. W. CLARK'S STATEMENTS.
LAWYERS ASSERT THAT AN EFFORT HAS
BEEN MADE; TO MINIMIZE DECISION
IN 3. AND o. CASE.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: The published statements OF Lester W.
Clark of counsel for the Baltimore and Ohio Rail-
road Company, in which he endeavors to mini
mize the effect of the recent decision bearing upon
the title TO the Staten Island Rapid Transit Rail-
road, are In some respects quite misleading.
The stockholders OF the Rapid Transit Railroad
Company charged that the Baltimore and Ohio
received majority of the Rapid Transit stock in
consideration of guaranteeing the second mortgage
bonds Of the Rapid Transit company. They
claimed that the Baltimore and Ohio while in
troll OF the property, brought about default upon
the bonds which il had guaranteed and procured
a foreclosure of the mortgage. under arrange
lnent by whica the Baltimore and Ohio was TO get
all the capital stock of new company. Let US
now see what the judge decided:
The defendant Baltimore and Ohio allowed
atnd me 10 go unpaid and actively insti
ene Purp9se ana intent of becoming the purchaser
az ths sale: Thereupon a sale under the Judgment
and Ohio the nominal title being taken by new
company TO wit the Staten Island Rapid Transit
halIWay Company, the Baltimore and Ohio TAX
Baltimore and Ohio bn5 m % cet nf Inc o
stockholders of the old company.
After thus demonstrating this signal instance
OF corporate conspiracy TO deprive stockholders
OF their proprietary interests. the judge announces
tAat the ethical character OF defendants con-
duct comes to be considered. and declares that he
Will not apply the rules that are applicable to
cases OF actual wicked fraud In consideration of
the trustees attempt being perpetrated upon
property which is deemed Of little value. he
charges plaintiffs stock IN the new company
with forcclosed claims which the Baltimore and
ohio held against the old company, whose fore
closure 1t had procured with the design OF elim-
mating the minority stockholders.
This method for securing trustees against the
consequences OF their misdoings makes the gain
Of fraudulent attacks upon trust estates abso-
lutte certainity-f the trustee is not found out he
keeps what he has appropriated while n he Is dis
covered he must be reinstated In everything he
may have lost In the process OF trying to accom-
plish his fraud
1t is true thai the settled principles OF equity
give the stockholders the right take the rail-
dens which the trustees have created But the
learned judge who decided this case enunciated
In recent case. in written opinion. the following
view OF the law:
1T Is thought TO be presumptuous to let ones
own bucket down into the living well of reason
instead OF being content to lick up from the
muddy, trampled earth around II the green and
staEuant leakage OF the past"
Hence. the above views in reference 10 the
duties OF owners OF property, TO compensate trus-
tees FOR their failure TO consummatn their efforts
70 capture the trust estate. the result Of
dipping ones own bucket down into the living
well of reason" Nevertheless they are sufficiently
novel 10 be submitted 10 the Appellate Division
OF the Supreme Court. BLAIR g PRICE
w-York July p 1901.