New-York tribune., 1903-04-27

New-York Stock Exchange and TO the Railroad
Under this heading attention is called 70 certain tain
differences between report OF goun as
OF March 81. 1902 and another report rendered & ~
fact is however that although these two reports
were made as OF the same date the report to the
Teporf was considered tentative in character and
die not include the general construction & scai
YEAR while the balance sheet submitted TO .1 tne
s aook a fSe month OF July was intended be full
and complete. Furthermore, in the interim hd t8g
gone into effect as OF April 1850. so that the state
nent made TO the Stock EXehasge neeeb bsI made
when the report 10 the Railroad Commission was
should be made 70 refer back 10 the perl2o an all,
terror the date Of the lease Inc item .,-,,r -
5ta fnd i Ieioning &c the Third Avenue Railroad
Company and its omission from n me view of the
fsct faf il was not part Of the funds Of the Met
ba TnemorandIIm concludes with reference 70
the statement Of the inccne account man "a sS state
company the Stock Exchange. ana - @ aise - the
rlen1 made the Railroad COMMISSION as ,,erein oa
sane cate 4re, e nne c for 1 a clear explanation in
detail With this we DC not agrs&s s. as f1 tfe ,st TO
the Railroad Commission the company Was ,t1- repo1
ing the oPeEs9ns t OF the he stoek oes ERchaee
reporting the operations OF its entire system "lgh MIN
sidiaTy companies who by law make their Own re-
ports 10 the Railroad Commission
To this statement Mr.. Osborne, in Mr. An1orys
presence. made the following reply. discussing
each item in order:
No 1.-The company incurred obligations for more no,
,bar 90 80 an for construction and equipment The
rompany paid 100000 more than the obligations
10. 5%If the amount due from lessor companies
from june 30 1901 was SiS rea =; 'e vear later or
on any other date. could not have been greater Ic
than actually existed. and was reported on JuTe n
20 1901 Moreover If the lessor companies actuaIIy
paid the MetroPotan $3eooooe IN noteS; bcame
liable under the lease for The amount OF the notes
.Svs MS SmPH xsa 9y a2as Sasd for e R GOsos s
in 1900 s.. 4.S29 600 was taken for that purpose; or
No 4-Such little thing as charging three OF
four times for building the same roao Is not worm
No- 5-They don't attempt TO explain WIZ the the
simple laying Of rails on street not an ~ oe =
mile, when it ought to cost only s2oooo, .,.,u
10, 80 = as"e 10 Long ,ie vnianation is given as to
how such account as the MetroI3cil-S9n M, n1s
Construction Lines Owned and Leased 10 oo6 oe
fg1 IN Tai might haT-e been honestly manipulated
No VII The Metropolitan company disposes OF
this point by simply stating, 1T appears that the
None Of these charges, whether admitted errors N
road four years after the road was completed and
fn fun operation. particularly as already tbs same
cost for reconstruction had been uIee OiiieH
cna1g9d TIr1 TIL. connanv dodres the issue. 1t does
deny the statement made and PROOF preseIteG f
that il carries valuation in its balance sheets io
Investments approximating S5,0oteo IN excess 9i
such values claimed by the company in It's pal u
1ses thew Increased the valuation of these invest
nete 81 2sI 00a when they themselves concede that
+uo CORPORATION of this character would undertahe
10 write up or down the valuation" OF securities
This in effect, amounts to declaring dividends
No TX That admits that Mr.. Nreelanas s
statement that he required 10 pay the uhr
funded debt incurred in the purchase OF STOCK 9L o.
false FOR the reason that this admits that the cost
sncurred in the purchase OF the Ihlrd avenue W. VI
only IS soc as and il also admits t1at hs stoeh
fully Dai6 for in 1900, whereas MT/N reeldlnu
circular. asking for s1l.009OO was issued on FeD
,Tsrv Ia 1902 This does not attempt TO eKplaiE
that when the Metropolitan made its report 10 lhe
state Railroad Commission II reported tat lLe ea
lire UufunGed debt of the road was only SSVVotye
while in the report the Stock Exchange IIie
figure was more than SlSeJ0.oG0 Why should lheH
Teport that the cost of the Third Avenue stock
was about s600o000 when Ereeiand, IN ms sNoLI I
pnplicaton for an increase of stock. Sal0 that li
stock had cost upward of S4GeO.e90? They dol1 I
sjenv that they took 81 100000 out OF the Metz
she money over TO she Interurban; and under the
contract between the Metropolitan ana the inter
urban the Interurban could use TINS s11VoV'V" ~
80 the ner cent guaranteed dividends .
Ne X If the Metropolitan received notes from ~
lessor companies, Immediately became liable Tor
re amounts d those notes. because under the
leases the Metropolitan assumed all oblGatlohs'
whenever incurred. of its lessor companies
No NJ They don't deny that they maze fA-
rsscive charges for new construction; that theN
on leased lines alone, making the cost a mile
s@S eFl where 81 900 would have been plenty
No XII. The general balance sheet is 10 De q
condensed transcript OF the general iecgerf aiIu
must show the exact hnanclal colhduon oi ,s ny
company on the date of such balance sheet Iney
admit that there was discrepancy between the
1sIanca sheet and cash disbursements, Whlch theA
don't account for satisfactorily