New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-19

never paid for them did they? Al think two or
not willing to part with them afterward.
ueh Was 1d pd e 9 t th5n So OSq o Mv
information is that it was.
Mr.. Alexander said that Baron Calvet Rogniat
had signed the underwriting agreement for
S1,000000 for himself and for 5000 900 for a
group, he thought while the Schreyers were
underwriters in the amount OF $1.O0O.000. The
Oppenheims were not underwriters. but had in
duced Baron Rognat to interest himself and
had otained some other underwriting subscrip-
tons. The witness would not admit that he
knew that clients or customers of the Open
helms had been induced by the firm to become
underwriters. He said he first concerned him
self with the efforts to collect the underwriting
on July u. 1902, at the request Of John w.
Young. He said he knew in June that Baron
oppenheim was engaged in getting some of the
underwriting. He declined to refer to a let
ter he had written to his firm on July II. 1902,
giving list of the underwriters. Referring to
the letter. however Mr.. Untermyer examined
Mr.. Alexander for time as follows:
ON your first interview with Rogniat, did he
Not complain that he had been deceived by Nj
;g lie coInpIalne9 mar ne naa Oe9n 1e-
with denuncIation OF the people upon whose
I was not Mr. Young.
that the issue in America was success? Al
ODD he not say that he understood that all the
Paris underwriters had to do was to collect their
Underwriting commissions? Al so understood
Did y9n say to him that it vas the general
cess and peddie the bonds afterward Al am
AFRAID that is SO ,
among reputable nnanciers in New-York to follow
that procedure? A-That seems to be the case.
usually to announce it through the papers as a
Odd he not appear to adopt your views as to
the way that sort of business was done in America?
Odd he tell you he had been made ridiculous in
3 You ms ask tbat II there was Substantial
difference in the undePwritings would he be pre-
Old he tell you he was afraid some of his sub
underwriters. when he told them. would "kick'2
oaDi5 you then say you did not believe that af-
e did the 'esa' relations OF the 'ranSA''iohF A.
THOUGHT IT A GOOD THING.
Q.-Before you got through with a tribute to the
company did the Baron Rogniat express himself
f Shgq ard saG that he thought it was good
.,Q,-Did he then proceed to make some investiga-
Gle then refused to perform the underwriting
Q.-When was it that he finally refused? Al
oaweTe not atttempts made to get him e give
up his s., pndeTwTtlng contra ctsg A.There were
Rogniat did NJ. Sourds come in? Ale did:
badly treated? Al think did I expressed my
regret.
Mr.. Alexander declined to answer some ques-
tons about the authority for the call which was
made on the French underwriters. but he said
the call came from New-York and was made
shortly before July IS. 1902. The question to
the legality Of the call was raised by some of
the underwriters.
& 0q SAY that 9 I he %E 5h9 Se s6 Of
make his peace with Baron Rogniat? Al decline
.Q.-Did. you say TO the opPenheims that j. P
Morgan had taken some Of the bonds: and that
heard such a rumor
ON what respect did this excite the Open
helms? Alt interested them. They said they
knew Mr. Morgan.
the opperheims to write letter to baron Rogniat
SO far as intinated that the letter be sent
Q.-What securities did you understand had been
uPderTgritings in Francs? A, Al did not know;
were to get 100000? Al did not know the amount
Mr.. Alexander said that in Paris he was act
ing for the Mercantile Trust Company of New
York, as well for Mr. Young, and he also
was counsel for the Trust Company Of the Re-
public. He arranged to have the banking house
Of Morgan, Harjes & Co, in Paris, receive the
underwriting. but he said he had choice in
the selection of that house. He declined to look
at a letter in which he had made mention of
the message sent by George w. Perkins to Nor
gan, Harjes & Co, recently placed in evidence
by Mr.. Perkins, and as to some other questions
which Mr.. Untermyer asked evidently reading
from letters, the witness was ordered by Mr.
Guthrie not to answer The witness said when
asked why he refused TO answer some questions
that he regarded them immateral, and he
refused TO answer other questions, saying they
called for conclusions, not facts 1t then
that the examiner ordered him to answer tell
ing him he would refuse at his peril. He said
that July %, 1902, Baron Rogniat came to
him in much agitation and told him that Harjes
had spoken badly Of the shipbuilding company
but after some cable dispatches had been sent
Harjes spoke pleasantly about the company.
Odd you tell Harjes that Mr.. Young was
stantly in New-York? Al don't remember say
ing that.
on July p, l%2 and ask you then whether or not
you uStu lile st.leII"II nave just mentioned A
such letter is privileged.
,Q.oAfterward did you not repeat the interview to
| the Oppenheims? Al don't remember; but If 1
did it was in the presence of Mr.. Young.
imself in the presence Of M Harjes? Al may Ci
have said he talked much.
Q.-Young was not there then? Ale not
The witness said his attention had been called
in Paris TO two kilograms. said to have been
sent by the Seligmans, about the shipbuilding
company but the MESA ges We're repudiated by
the Segrnans bogus. Mr. Untermyer let the
witness go for a few minutes and Mr.. Guthrie
asked some questions, Mr.. Alexander saying
among other things, that when he heard the
report that Mr.. Morgan had taken some of the
shipbuilding bonds he believed it. To Mr. I'm
termyer again. Mr.. Alexander declared with
great emphasis that he knew his firm had made
no arrangement with Mr. Young to act as pro-
motors for the shipbuilding company.