The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1905-06-14
LAURENS, S. c., June IA, 1905.
Ex-DirectOr MilIiken's Answer.

The answer of S. M. Milliken in the
suit brought by w. e.. Lucas may be
effective in law, but it will not help
Mr.. Milliken's cause in the minds of
the unprecedented public. AS a speci-
men of its contents, it may be cited
that, Mr.. Milliken admits that Mr.. Lu-
cas- "has in some respects and for a
part of the time performed the duties
of the office with efficiency and energy,
but he alleges that many acts of the
president have not been to the interest
and advantage of said corporation, but
to its detriment and hurt, and have
been of such a nature as to meet the
disapproval, disfavor and criticism of a
majority of the directors and of a large
number of the stockholders, and the
defendant alleges that the said cor
poration would have attained much
greater success but for the said acts of
the plaietiff, (Mr. Lucas)."
Until May 10, 1905, Mr.. S. M. Mill
ken was q director of the Laurens
Mills and in part responsible for its
management. Not until after Nav 2,
1905, the date of the annual meeting of
the Darlington Mills, when his firm had
lost the commission business of that
mill, did Mr.. Milliken endeavor to gain
control of the Laurens Mills. Although
a director and responsible for the man
agement, Mr.. Milliken did not criticize
Mr.. Lucas management-until Deer
ing, Millikcn & Company lost the COM
missions.
Although he now alleges mismanage-
ment and unfaithfulness on the part of
w. r.. Lucas, yet as late as May 10th
ne bought large blocks of stock at 5000.
the share, thirty or forty or fifty dol
lars the share more than the market
price. The following week he told the
New York correspondent of the News
and Courier that that price was a fair
price.
If on May 10th Mr.. Milliken thought
the mill vas icing mismanaged, why
didn't he sell the stock he held rather
than buy more? If he has discovered,
since those purchases, that the mill has
been mismanag9d, why doesn't he sell
now? The stock commands a good fig
IRE.
The fact is that until the question of
commissions arose and was settled
against the firm of Deering, Milliken e
Company, Mr.. Lucas had the warm and
repeatedly expressed approval of Direc-
tor S. M. Milliken as well as of the en-
tire board of directors.
One other point in Mr.. Milliken's an
swer deserves notice. He claims that
his firm guaranteed the Mills against
losses on goods sold. The contract of
Stevens e Co., the two per cent house,
makes the same guaranty.
We do not propose to comment on
Mr.. Milliken's answer. The good taste,
the justice and the consistency of Di-
rector S. NJ. Milliken's failure to criti-
else the management of the Laurens
Mills until after he had been dropped
from the directorate is for the public to
consider. While Mr.. Milliken was a di-
rector it was his duty, his duty as a
trustee of the stockholders, as a guar
dian placed by them over their inter
ests, to know and to prevent misman-
agement. His attitude is that of an as
sailant of the management only after he
had lost the power to remedy evils.
1t should be remembed that Mr.. Lu-
cas- was reelected president and treasu-
rer in 1904 and that S. M. Milliden and
several of his friends helped to %reelect
him. 1t was in the power of S. M.
Milliken, j. O.. C. Fleming, John w.
Ferguson, f.. j. Hale and V. M. Mont
gomery five of nine directors) to de-
feat w. e. Lucas for reelection in May
1904.
The question of paying Deering,
Milliken & Company three and four per
cent commissions instead of two per
cent commissions to another firm had
not then arisen.