The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1905-12-13

of business they were endeavoring to
handle. Things looked pretty squally
at the mill at that time, because it had
no or very little credit, and had not
been in operation long enough to estab-
lish its reputation. The president of
the mill at that time applied to Mr..
Milliken to take the account end aid
the institution financially. This he con-
sented to do, upon the urgent request
of one of his long personal friends in
South Carolina. Well dc I remember
how glad the endorsers on these papers
were when Mr.. Milliken consented to
take charge of the selling agency of
the goods of the company, and to fur
nish the necessary capital. Soon there.
after all of the said notes were paid,
and from that day as long as he kept
the account, / never heard of the di-
~rectors or anyone else being called upon
to endorse papers. have never heard
of the mill needing a dollar from that
time forward, but what it promptly re-
ceived, and, that even, according to my
understanding without giving notes.
So much for the history of the building
of the enterprise.
WHEN H LITIGATION STARTED.
1 was an original subscriber and still
have my stock, and was a director for
a while. While 1 differed with Mr.. Lu~
cas- in some details concerning the man.
agement of the property, yet upon the
whole l was satisfied with the price the
stock was bringing and the dividend it
was paying thought when the mill had
gotten on its feet and was making
handsome profits that the stockholders
should have been paid a dividend before
they received it, which was about five
years. In fact, I moved in the direc-
tors meeting, and that year before a
dividend was paid, that we pay a three
per cent semi-annual dividend. My ar
gument was that a great many poor
people had invested their earnings in
the enterprise, and that they should
have a dividend to help them meet their
daily wants. Besides this a great many
of our people had gone to the banks
and borrowed money, and had been pay
ing interest on it all the while, and
some of them were disposing OF their
stock under par, and if we did not pay
the.a g dividend at an early date they
would still sacrifice it further, and that
after 80 doing, they would become dis
satisfied with the mill in particular, and
disguised with all similar institutions in
general. A good many of the local
stockholders, perhaps all of them, also
disagreed with the management of the
mill in erecting very expensive and un-
necessarily extravagant buildings, as
we considered it, particularly so with
out consulting the board of directors.
L do not know that it is true, but it is
reported that the Office building cost
$4,000, and is said to be the finest mil
office in the South, and that the school
house cost $l2, 500, and that a stable
building, paid for out of the funds OF
the company for Mr.. Lucas's private
and personal use, cost anywhere from
$4,000 to $1,000, and, moreover, it was
commonly reported and generally be-
lieved tina. he had had plans drawn to
build him a private residence on the
land of the company, and out of its
funds, which would cost 500, 600. 1t
was along about this time that large
number of the stockholders became
restless and the local directors became
dissatisfied, and he was asked to take
| tho otohlo LOT nf fho Lorlr - Al
pany, etc. Shortly after this the litiga-
ton arose between himself and Mr..
Milliken, all of which is familiar to the
public, and anyone desiring a more de-
tailed account of it can find it in Judge
Brawley's interesting and just decree,
published in full in The News and Cou-
rier of July 81 of this year.
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.
MI. Lucas claims the sole foundation
of his contention with Mr.. Milliken was
his refusal to handle the goods of the
company for a less commission. 1 am
not passing any judgment in the CON
troversy, but Mr.. Milliken says the
trouble is a personal one-that Mr.. Luz
cas- had become angry with him because
he would not loan him additional money
for another mill, and that he had made
derogatory remarks of him, his son and
firm. 1t is claimed that a proposition
was made by Mr.. Lucas to purchase
five hundred shares of MIR. Milliken's
stock. AS to whether this trade was
entered into, it will be necessary for
the Courts to decide, and it would be
improper for me, being one of the at
torneys in the cuse, to express an opin-
ion. However, the records are public
property, and they show a suit was
brought by Mr.. Lucas in May, 1905,
against Mr.. Milliken and others, in
which it was claimed that said agree
ment had been entered into. In this
suit an injunction was prayed for, etc.
The record shows that Judge Klugh
granted an injunction on the 18th of
May, when the annual meeting of the
stockholders was TO be held on the 10th,
only two days thereafter, and that he
enjoined the Millikens from voting not
only the five hundred shares of stock.
but their entire holdings, and the prox-
les represented by them, amounting to
something like LOO shares. The mill
was made a party to this suit.