New-York tribune., 1902-07-10
SAGE NOT IN STEEL SUIT.
SAYS HE NEVER AUTHORIZED THE -
OF HIS NAME.
CURIOUS COMPLICATION IN ACTION TO EN-
JOIN TRUsT-DAvID LAMAR's COM
MENTs ON THE CASE

Some peculiar maneuvres yesterday were
executed IN the progress Of the latest Of the
series Of actions brought m opposition to the
rroposed conversion of preferred stock Of the
United States Steel Corporation into bonds.
Among the plaintiffs named in this action.
which was brought on Monday. were William
H curtiss. who was identified with David La
mar in the Third Avenue Railroad troubles
early in 1900; and the two members Of the
Stock Exchange firm Of Hopkins Brothers.
Franklin W. Hopkins, senior member of Hop
kins Brothers, the following day issued a
statement in which he said: THE use of our
name IN this suit unauthorized, and
have taken steps TO have it withdrawn" Yes
terday the Street was surprised by the an
nouncenent from Newark that a much more
weighty name than that Of William H. Curtiss
or Bernard Smith or ]. AspinwaI Hodge-the
name Of Russell Sage-had been added to the
list Of plaintiffs The report confirmed by
Abrarn I Elkus OF James. ScheI & Elkus. who
said:
Upon the application of my firm. counsel for
Mr. Sage, through Messrs. McCarter william
son & McCarter, Of Newark, Mr.. Russell Sage
has been Joined party plaintiff in the suit
OF Hodge and others against the United States
Steel Corporation in which an Injunction has
been granted preventing the issue Of S25O,OOO,OoO
Of bonds. Mr.. Sage owns 5.903 shares Of the
preferred stock and is opposed TO the present
plan for the issue OF these bonds.
SENT WORD TO ]. P. MORGAN.
But, as IN the case of Hopkins Brothers,
the fact that Mr.. sage's name had been for
1naIIy placed in the list Of plaintiffs in the
Curtiss-Smlth-H Hodge suit didn't necessarily sig
Nifty that It had ben put there with Mr.. Sage's
knowledge and consent AS soon as he heard
about II he sent word to ]. P. Morgan & Co.
that the addition had been made without his
authority, and he also made the following
statement TO the press:
have not authorized my name to be USED
in the matter at all. don't know that II mas
been used, excepting from the rumors that nave
been brought to me. I am one Of the largest
stockholders IN the United States Steel Cor
poration and I would not attack my own Props s
erty I gave my proxy and voted for the oond
conversion plan and therefore Of course, coulo
not appear as a complainant in an action 10 pre-
vent 1t.
MISUNDERSTANDING BY MR. SAGE.
This explicit denial seemed to call for fur
ther statement by Mr.. Elkus. who issued one
IN these words:
With reference to the statement that Mr.
Sage did not authorize my firm TO have him IN
teryene as a party defendant in the action
brought by Hodge and others against the
United States Steel Corporation, Mr.. sage IN
forms me Just now that he did authorize me to
take the proceeding, but finds he gave his proxy
TO Mr.. Morgan 10 vote for the issue OF the
bonds, and, therefore. has requested me to take
the necessary proceedings TO withdraw his name
as plaintiff The instruction 10 Institute the
proceeding was given TO me personally by Mr.
Sage and he confirms II. Mr. sage mas written
me the following letter:
Dear Mr.. Elkus: Yours of the 9th inst. re-
ceived informing that have been made
plaintiff in the suit brought by Hodge ana
others. against the United States Steel Company,
entoining the issue Of S25OOOoovO OF bonds
There seems to be misunderstanding on my
part in regard to this matter, and seem TO
have misled you l know that you acted IN
good faith believing that I fully authorized
rO eft a Il l.
proxy Mr.. Morgan to vote for the issue or
these bonds and, therefore do not want to be
q plaintiff in the suit. 1 hereby request you
10 take the necessary proceedings TO withdraw
my name as plaintiff Yours truly,
7 -vid Lamar was found at Mr.. Elkuss Office.
and made this statement. while Mr.. Elkus, in
connecting ROOM was gesticulating with the
apparent object of dissuading him from talking
with the reporters:
I approve OF this suit, though 1 not inter
ested in it. The plaintiffs friends OF mine.
When I saw on the Wall Street news sheets
the statement that Mr.. Sage had been made
party plaintiff L called at his office for the pur-
pose of confirming the news. but was unable TO
quently learned a Mr.. Sages office that there
a question as to his real status in the ac-
ton, and that could obtain authentic informa-
ton by calling at the Office Of James, Scheu q
Elkus.
rs there something back of the suit more
than has already appeared" asked.
Il think there undoubtedly is" answered Mr..
Lamar, but l am quite sure that this is not one
Of the so-called strike suits-in other words,
that Il is not suit, at least far as the orig
inal plaintiffs concerned, brought simply in
order that the plaintiffs may be bought on or
placated; and very proper motive, l believe,
inspired Mr.. Hodge and his associate plaintiffs"
The order admitting Mr.. Sage as party COM
plainant in the suit begun last week in the
Chancery Court OF New-Jersey to enJoin the
United States Steel Corporation from convert
ing 5000 100000 Of its Z per cent preferred stock
into , per cent bonds for the same amount was
signed by Vice-Chancellor Emery in his private
Office at Newark, the application OF Rob-
ert y. McCarter, who is not only solicitor for
J. Aspinwall Hodge and others in the latest liti-
cation against the steel corporation, but was
also counsel for Mrs Miriam Berger, on whose
petition a permanent injunction against the
converting of the bonds issued a week
the ruling of the New-Jersey Court Of Errors
and Appeals an appeal by the company 1t
is set forth in the order granted yesterday that
Mr.. Sage enters the case with the other COM
plainants and is the holder of 5000 shares of
preferred stock and 1000 shares of common
stock.
When the order was signed by the Vice-Chan-
cellor there was considerable jubation shown
on the part Of Mr.. McCarter. He intimated that
the steel corporation would be likely to have
rather hard fight on its hands Asked II there
was any truth in the report that the New-York
Stock Exchange firm of Hopkins Brothers in
tended 10 withdraw from the suit as complain
ants, Mr.. McCarter answered that they had not
withdrawn, and that he quite sure there
was truth in the report. The lawyer also
said that he had no information about re-
ported intention by interested parties to try TO
enJoin the steel corporation from paying divi-
dends its common stock