The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1905-07-08

/ Alexander will likewise disclose that it
| is couched in the NOSE general terms
and does not charge Mr. Hyde with
any specific wrong-doing, although Mr.
/ Alexander had at that time the knowl-
| edge upon which he based his belief
that Mr.. Hyde had been guilty of the
| specific acts with which he charged
him in his letter of May 2. That Mr.
| Alexander made these charges against
Mr.. Hyde for the purpose of advancing
his proposed scheme of naturalization
seems clear from these two facts: first,
that at the meeting on February 16, a
scheme Of naturalization was agreed
upon; and second that at this meeting
of February IS Mr.. Hyde was re-elect-
ed first vice-president, Mr.. Alexander
voting for him.
Now what are the facts concerning
Mr.. Alexander's knowledge of the
gravest of his charges against Mr..
Hyde which he certainly should have
fully disclosed to the directors in order
to prevent Mr. Hyde's reelection? Re-
ferring to a letter written by Mr.. Alex
ander on April Il, 1905, to the chair
man of this committee, which is a reply
to a published letter of Mr.. Hyde adj
dressed to the chairman of this COM
mittee under date of April Is, 1905. in
which Mr.. Hyde set out his connection
with the syndicate of James H. Hyde
and associates, and accused Mr. Alex
ander of being member of said syn
dictate also, Mr.. Alexander states, after
denying that he knowingly partici-
pated in the profits of any syndicate
formed for the purpose of underwriting
bonds or securities of which the So
ciety was to become purchaser" that
early in January O9O5) Mr.. Hyde de-
livered to me two checks aggregating
$4,000 which he stated We're profits
from my allotted participations in GER
| tain syndicates which I found upon a
prompt investigation had underwritten
securities to be sold concurrently to
the society" Mr. Alexander then adds:
'This was before any controversy had
arisen in the society,"" and that he
turned the amount of this check over
to the sOciety's cashier "solely on my
own judgment as to the propriety of
the transaction" From this letter there
can be no question about either Of these
propositions: First, that early in Jan
uary, 1905 and before any controversy
had arisen in the society, Mr. Alexan-
der knew, or believed that he knew, as
result of his own investigation, that
Mr.. Hyde was in a syndicate to under
write securities to be sold concurrently
to the society. Second that the pro-
fits upon such securities so sold to
the society were very large, as Mr..
AleXander's allotted share amounted to
100000. Third, that Mr.. Alexander
conscience and judgment disapproved
the transaction. That is to say, Mr.
Alexander knew, or thought he knew,
long before the annual election, of the
grossest sort of breach of duty upon
the part of Mr. Hyde, and though pro-
testing against the reelection of Mr.
Hyde for reasons Of his own, bearing
upon the proposed change in the con-
stitutiOn of the society, he failed to dis
close to the board of directors this
breach of duty, which would have been
a sufficient reason for not re-elecUing
Mr.. Hyde
The committee deem it unnecessary
to enter into the same detail in respect
to the other Irregularities charged a.
gainst Mr.. Hyde by Mr. Alexander.
Mr., AleXander's duty Of disclosure was
the same in each case. The charges
all have reference to matters occurring
before the annual election of which
Mr.. Alexander had, or should have had
knowledge.
Upon Mr.. AleXander's own statement
of the misdoings of Mr. Hyde the COM
mittee finds that Mr.. Alexander was
culpably negligent in acquiescing in
them for so long a period and in not
bringing them to the attention of the
board of directors at such time and in
such way as to enable the directors
to consider them i'm connection with
the exercise of their responsible duty
of electing the officers of the society.
Not only has Mr.. Alexander con-
cealed from the directors the Irregular
tiles of Mr.. Hyde, of which he was cog
infant and Of which he now complains
but Mr.. Alexander openly encouraged
them. In so important a matter as
aiding in the proper conduct of the
examination that the bylaws of the
society provided the fiscal or examining
committee should make of "the ac-
counts and assets of the society at the
close of each fiscal year" Mr.. Alexan-
der openly advised Mr. Hyde while he
was entirely under his tutelage that
this might and should be ignored.
November IA, 1904, Mr.. Alexander
wrote to Mr.. Hyde.
81 don't know just when Willie is
to return but suggest with your con-
currence, that he be charged with the
responsibility of steering the fiscal
committee when it meets. We have
two new members on it and 1t is just
as well that they should all be under
reasonable observation. Let him re-
member that the only duty of this
fiscal committee is to prove our annual
statement.
1T is not their province to go into
the management of the company or to
express opinions about methods. When
they come to proving what we call our
Ledger Balances" il has been the