Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1905-06-22
MRS. RODNEY 3. SWIFT, A STOCK.
HOLDER, MAKES sENsATloN-
AL CHARGE.
HER HUSBAND rs SUED
Plaintiff in Unusual Case is Wife Of
Man From Whom An Accounting ls
Asked by the Harvester Combine
Attorney Says Company Has No
Monopoly.

l =
Chicago, Jan 21.-Mrs. Margaret q.
Swift, wife Of Rodney B. Swift, the
official Of the International Harvester
company accused of working conf.
dence games on his employers, has
replied in defense of her husband by
exploding counter mine of charges
and accusations under the big corpo-
ration.
In a bill In chancery filed yester.
day by ex-Judge Hiram T. Gilbert.
her husbands attorney, 1t Is charged
that the harvester company has cor.
rupted legislators in three states, has
evaded taxation, has practiced fraud
and deceit in securing control Of COM
peting companies, has made enor-
nous profits by the prices charged
for its agricultural implements, has
paid bribes to labor leaders to prevent
strikes and has done numerous and
sundry other unlawful acts" the re.
cital of which requires 119 pages of
printed matter
In connection with the charges 243
} questions are directed at Cyrus H. Nc
Cormick. president Of the company.
and other directors against whom the
bill is filed. including the following:
Harold r. Mccormick Stanley Nc
Corn'icl5. George r. Baker. Cyrus Bent
! ley, Paul D. Gravath. William Deering,
. Charles Deering, James Deering Eli
y bert Fl. Gary. John j. Gleassner, Rich
8 ard r. Howe, Abrnm M. Hvatt, Will
n liam III. Jones, George w. PerlSin-. Nor
g man b. Ream, Charles Steele, Leslie
/. Z. Ward, Nettie r. Mccormick Anita
q Mccormick Blaine.
Mrs Swift Cfoekbolder
& Mrs. Swift has been stockholder
in the company since May 1, when she
j. secured possession of thirty .'McCor-
e mick certificates issued to Samuel d.
8 Porter, with par value of 500 each.
Y These certificates were issued by the
d company as meansbo of rewarding EN-.
I. ployes having a record for continuous
e and good service by giving them an
is interest in the profits.
e When her husband who had been
le head of the patent department Of the
n company, '-as sued for the recovery
of $4,000, he was alleged to have talk
IL en- by fraudulent manipulation of the
e. price paid for patent corn shredder,
and afterwards was sued also for the
recovery of the certificates" given
n MN for his services all his shares.
- -. represented by certificates were trans.
~ ferred to his wife, She thus became
-. ~ stockholder, and since May / has
= held 25 shares Of stock.
1t is as a shareholder that she files
the bill, alleging that the unlawful
acts of the directors are bringing the
company into disrepute. iniuring the
IT. property interests of the stockholders
and tending eventually to destroy the
value Of the property.
Nv Prayer of the EilI.
of Mrs. Swift prays that the company
tie be required to account for none,
|th which Is alleged to have been misuset
re. and further:
That the directors be prohibited from
taking rebates from railroad compan
les.
That they be compelled to make hon
est returns of property for assessmen
md purposes.
That they be restrained from certai
unlawful acts in which they are alleg
G.. ed to have been engaged in pursuanc
,ad of conspiracy alleged to have bee
lad entered into by them to obtain
,dn monopoly of the manufacture and sal
,us of harvesting and other agriculture
'as machines.
% Defendants Tell Of Threat.
Representatives of the Harveste
company assert that copy of the bi
n setting forth the charges of corruptio
" was brought to them week ago wit
/ the intimation that it would not b
= filed If legal proceedings against Swi
were dropped. They assert that thi
offer was refused and that Swift. hi
wife, and their attorneys were told
OF go ahead with the expose.
John s. Miller attorney for the con
panv, said last night. "The purpos
of the suit is obvious on its face III
derstand that shortly before the begil
ming of the suit against Swift brougl
rdi- by the Harvester company, Swi
fou threatened, If his conduct was expose
w to make some attack upon his emplo
i'm ers rs this complaint of his wife no
g.. makes. This threat did not avail ar
~ the suit for an accounting was brougl
tia against him by the company.
ing "Thereupon his attorney gave sir
liar warning, and a few days ago SCI
tent around the 243 questions that are MAJ
ana. part of Mrs. Swift's bill This W;
supposed to let the comnsny know Il
ON. nature Of what was coming. But Il
Os- Harvester company could not
~, bluffed and no attention was paid
these threats.
'tea Asked as to charges which allie
ton that the international Harvester co