Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-12-18

and causal examination of the shit
wards prospectus, MIR. Steele notified
Ms SchWab that the offer would be
accepted.
Nixon and Dresser We're to nav TO,
the stock the original purchase prics
in cash, S7,2i6,000. in addition to s.. 0OO..
900 OF the Shipbuilding COMPANY Sc
curities.
Mr.. Schwab at the time informed
Mr.. Steele that he (Schwab) was to
receive $l0,000,0O0 in Shipbuildine
bonds, and the same amount of each
kind of shipbuilding stocks.
Mr.. Steele said that at the time he
considered the shipyard proposition
a good one and its stocks good invest
mcnt, expecting the common stock to
earn dividends from the start and for
that reason he believed that the $4,000
600 in stock embraced in the purchase
price was an adequate return for the
interest and profits on the Morgan in
vestment of $7,245,000 for the year.
After the recess, Mr.. Steele contin-
ueG his testimony about the sale of
Bethlehem to Nixon and Dresser. Mr..
Untermyer asked what reason there
was that Mr.. Schwab, owning no Beth
lehem stock at the time, should receive
$50 600, eco in Shipbuilding bonds and
stocks at the time Of the sale. to which
Mr.. Steele replied that it was in con-
sideTation for the risk Mr.. Schwab as
sumed in making the contract for the
purchase of bethlehem STOCK which
was Immediately assigned to Morgan
& Co. Mr.. SchWab had not told him
that these securities would give him a
control of the Shipbuiding Company.
Morgan &, Co., had received the S. O0O.-
900. part Of the purchase price, the
stock being assigned in blank. Coming
to the Marris, Gates Co., agreement,
which provided for the sale of the
Morgan and Schwab stock before all
other Shipbuilding stock, Mr.. Steele
said that he knew of it at the time
having seen copy of it.
Mr.. Steele had previously been in
formed by some party to the agree
ment Che could not remember whether
it was Gates, Schwab or PAM that
there was an arrangement for the sale
of the SchWab stock and he declined to
have the Morgan stock included. Sub
SeQuently Mr.. Gates left with him q
copy of the agreement, covering both
the Morgan and Schwab stock, to
which Mr. Steele after consulting Mr..
Perkins mad informally acceded. His
firm. he said, was not a formal party
to the agreement, had not signed it and
had not taken advantage of it. The
S., 100000 in stock, he said had remained
in the Morgan vaults until sold to Mr..
Schwab. He had not thought of the
agreement after his conversation with
Mr.. Gates until mention was made OF
it during the pending suit. The agree
ment, he considered, was in the nature
Of an offer to include the Morgan stock
in the early sale if the firm so desired,
not u hard and fast contract that tbs
stock must be sold first
When Mr.. Steele had left the witness
chair Mr. Guthrie had an entry made
on the record, of his objection to the
publicity brought about by the method
of conducting the examination.
I'VE will concede on the record"
said Mr.. Untermyar, that Mr.. Guthrie
objects to the publication of anything
that we may Bring. out here"
Charles Alexander, of Alexander &,
blteil tile INV IilIil concerned IN the
promotion Of the Shipbuilding Co..
succeeded him. He formally refused
to produce the cable dispatches which
were the subject of such dispute las
week during Mr.. Perkins examination.
Nh tntermeEer put a long series OF
about correspondence and
papers in the case, but Mr.. Alexander
declined to make answer in most cases
on The ground that communications
were privileged as between attorney
and client. He declined to reply to
questions about the organization of the
Co, on the ground that
he had no such knowledge" as could
form testimony. admitting that he had
however. IAN intimat ton of the pro-
gress of affairs ana the relations of the
Co, his client John W.
Young, and the Trust Go. of the Repub-
lie. The examination of Mr.. Alexander.
by Mr.. Untermyer developed into a
keen battle Of legal experts.
Mr.. Alexander testified about the
French underwriting and his confer
ence with M. Silvey, Kelly and Mari
schal, French attorneys, who advised
him that the underwriting agreement
with the French underwriters We're en-
forceabie under French law. Neither
he nor his firm, however, had had any
thing to do with procuring the UNDER
writing in France or elsewhere