New-York tribune., 1903-04-27
MASON ADMITS OFFER TO AMORY
BUT DENIES 1T VAS FOR METROPOLITAN OR ". III.
PAGE JR
VreeInnds accountants Reply to PhiIbins Charges -
They Do Not ErpLain Discrepancies

In the Amory -Vreeland- -Phibin-M Metropolitan
controversy. yesterday was a day of much
travail resulting in the issuing of three state
ments-one President Vreeland. one from
Mr. Osborne, representing W. n. AmOry. and
that from Daniel Mason. The Osborne and Vree-
land statements contradicted each other IN re-
gard to almost every detail save one, the Met
ropolitan's accountants holding that these in
vestments" pledged and unpledged securities)
should be held your books at cost, ire
spective of their par or market value with
this Mr. Osborne most heartily agreed. and asked
how in view of that the Metropolitan could ex-
plain that between December, 1901, and March,
1902 these securities increased s1ooOOoo IN
value.
In an interview asst night Daniel Mason ad-
mitted that he had offered to buy some sloch
from w N Amory. who has charged president
yreeIand of the Metropolitan Railway Com
pany with libel. But Mason denied tnat IN IN
making this offer he was representing w H
Page tr. or the Metropolitan Street Railway
Company in any manner. He also denied that
the amount he offered was anything like
100000" which figure has been mentioned III
connection with alleged attempt TO ouy
off, Amory in his Metropolitan fight The busl-
ness regarding which he saw Amory, he de-
cIared had no connection with the Metropolitan
company. His statement follows:
Mr.. Page. as everybody knows who knows
him at all, told the truth when he testified tnat
he did not send me to see Amory, and 1 shall so
testify. if am called on to do so
1 did go to see Amory. but on my own
initiative and for a reason known only 70 my
self / did not go him at the request OF
Mr. Page or at the request Of anybody con-
nected with the Metropolitan Street Railway
Company, directly or indirectly.
In the of our talk on the matter
about which L went to see him, did make
him an offer his stock in "a company
him 100000, however. or anything ike
that sum. 1t is also true that on the day
called on Amory i received from Mr. rage
$500 payment for some legal business
which e had engaged me to transact
This business was not in the remotest way
connected with the Metropolitan company or
with anybody connected with it 1t was con-
corning a matter now pending, and which may
continue on the docket for some time.
The vreeland report printed for mailing to
stockholders, contained the comment of stephen
Little Farquhar J. MacRae and Haskins &
Sells ION memorandum relating to the ornclal
reports of the Metropolitan Street Railway Com
nanv." This memorandum was the finding" of
Eugene A Philbin No reference is made to
the actual condition as shown the Metropoli-
tan's books Of this Mr. Amory said last night;
1T is clear that the company's own accountants
dared make no explanation or defence by any
reference to the Metropolitans books
Mr. Osborne was jubrant over Mr.. Vreeland's
statement, which, he said, confirmed every
opinion he had heretofore formed NO man,
he continued, 'can fail to agree that Mr.. Amory
was justified in submitting his discoveries to the
District Attorney. What lmpresses most is
that the Metropolitan people make attempt
TO dispute the excessive charges for reconstruc-
ton. also that the same work was charged for
three or four times
DO NOT DOUBT REPORTS.
In a letter prefacing the report given out for
Mr.. vreeland yesterday. the accountants say:
We have no hesitation in saying that there is
nothing In the reports ana 4sner p4PPers P confents
brought before us. and nothing IN any ch tie
fords the slightest ground for any charge OF cor cor
porate nag or @ Tor the e
ated. Nor does an examination Of the ne1OTan aTn-
as to the accuracy Of ocial reports at the
OF onnf the ~tST expendtures inH therein reported
The least that be said in comment upon the
aegaGmdS to which yo1 have called our atte
ton is that they wholly mistaken
AS to the first item. charging that the cash
disbursement for new construction and equip
nent in certain years was reported TO the State
Railroad Commission S35.413.421 -. while in
the cornpany's general balance sheet the amount
was S25 300 572 76. the accountants say;
The figures stated by the persons who prepared
This memorandum are incorrect. Ihe sum reported
Was SIS 7o5572 76 the difference for the pur-
"ose ~ mis- inquiry. IS immateriaL
The Question which this comparison seeks 10
What of the missing ten millions
Tba answer is that there is no missing ten millions
and that the comparison Is mistaken. misleading
- cn1trarv TO all principles OF accounting The
companyis statement of cash disburseme9s repre-
SSnts obIiyations paid during the Specint period
yrbiIe the increase in the amount charged 70 tne
Construction and equipment account. as SHOWN on
~ sheet, represents obligations incurred
The two things are obviously so different that any
atiemnt 10 compare them is prepOsterOus and con- /
veVs no meaning whatever
Regarding the second charge. false balance OF /
s2 600 600 due from lessor companies carried /
forward from 1901 to 1902" they say:
This inference is entirely unwarranted. me
tran saction embodied In these two reports was vas
sin1nIv this: Three million dollars had Seen paid
nv tbe lessor companies 70 the Metropolitan IN |
notes on account OF additions dnG nettefheiltS !
made ny the Metropolitan company upon their re.
al nnfA