The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1905-11-15

4
participation was profitable, the net
profits so earned being more than
$Ss6,000, and that these participa-
tions were for the same purpose and
upon the same authority as It's in
yestments by syndicate subscrip-
tons.
8. That in three instances, and
three instances only, the national
campaigns of 1896, 1900 and1904,
the company contributed funds for
the defeat of free silver, because its
officers well believed that If the free
silver issue were successful, thus de-
preciating the national currency, the
valne Of the company's assets would
thereby be seriously diminished and
its policy-holders correspondingly
injured.
9. That the company has incur
red legal expenses to advocate OF de-
feat legislationg but there has been
no evidence that this money has been
improperly expended, the employ
ment of counsel for such purposes
being recognized by law as proper
and legitimate as for litigation IN
court or other like purposes
10. That every purchase or sale
of securities OF investment OF the
company's funds has been made IN
the most conservative manner and
in every case for the best interest OF
the poiicy=hoIders; that on not
single bond purchased by the com
pany has there been default IN the
E,s,s,,o,,t ~ infarnst
These are some of the things the
evidence affirmatively shows. You
do not refer to any of them IN your
seandalous article. Indeed, you DO
not undertake to be specific IN any
respect except that you charge that
the funds of the company have been
unreasonably paid to the president s
family. Your statements IN this re-
card. and the facts, are as follows:
You saw President Mccall re
ceiyes a salary of 100000. This
is true. ,...
the presidents son-in-law, second
vice president, receives a salary OF
SAC. 900. The truth is, MI hlngs-
lev was in the company's employ
long before the president was, and
held a responsible position when Mr'
Mccall became president. He be-
came the presidents son-in-law At
ter he had won his standing IN the
company. He is a vice president
and his salary is 5000 and not
SAC. 900 as stated by you.
g. You say John c. Mccall, the
presidents son, is the company
secretary, on a salary of $4,000.
This is true. The Presidents son Is
the company's senior secretary, and
a rarely capable and efficient officer
4. Yoresay Ballard Mccall, the
presiden. m, receives salary OF
SIC. 900. There is no truth in this.
The president has son named Bal
lard. but he never was in the COM
pany's employ and never received n
salary. The President has five sons:
but no one of them has even been IN
the company's employ or on its pay
roll except the secretary.
5. You say Ambrose Mccall the
presidents brother, receives a salary
of Sc, 900. There is no truth in this
The presidents brother, Ambrose,
! died more than three years ago. He
| never was in the company's employ
nor received a salary under it since
Mr.. Mccall became its president.
6. You say E. E. Mccall, the
presidents brother, receives salary
of $4,000. This is not true. The
presidents brother, Z. p. Mccall, is
| Judge of the supreme court of New
York, and has not received a dollar
from the company since he went on
the bench more than three years ago
z. You say Walter Fitzpatrick
the presidents brother-in4aw, re
ceives a salary of $1,000. The
president has no brother-in-law Of
other relative named Fitzpatrick
and Walter Fitzpatrick never was il
the company's employ.
6. You say Frank Dolan, tn,
presidents brother-in-law, receive
a salary of $500. The presiden
has no brother-in-law or other rela
tive named Dolan.
8. You say Albert McClave, tn
presidents son-in-law, receives
J salary of $4,000. Albert McClay
had won a high place in the servit
! of the company before he became u
president's son-in-law, and was the
earning more than $4,000 a yea
; His salary is now $4,000, not sc