The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1905-11-15
Lucas.Milliken Case.

, unfortunate troubles in the Laurens
Mills and had bought large blocks Of
stock the suggestion came privately
from sources now identified with the
Millikens that the reasonable and fair
adjustment lay in give-and-take Of
fer. This suggestion came to mind
here in Laurens-not to the mind Of
the Lucas faction.
OF course we are ready to call
names with time, place and circum-
stances if this assertion should be
disputed.
AS the Lucas people were in pos
session it seemed fair that the prop
osition should come from the other
side-that they should have the op-
tion However, the war went on. At
last the Lucas crowd made the give
and-take proposition, giving the Mil
likens the option. They offered to
buy the whole mill at $170 or sell all
their stock at the same price. But
there they did not stop. They in
timated that they night be induced
to pay $3.50 for the stock Of Lucas
and his friends.
This means, if it means anything,
that stock in their hands is worth
more than s170, but in any other peo-
pies hands only $3.50.
Now as long as a coalition exists by
which the Millikens control a major
ity, the stock Of the minority cannot
go up in price. Nobody will likely buy
minority stock. The majority are the
only buyers. AS a matter of fact if
the mill were free the stock would be
$40 or more higher now than it vas
when the Millikens gained control of
a majority; the mill having been
prosperous. No one will deny that
they are keeping the stock down. They
will not deny it themselves. They are
the only buyers.
Since the Millikens will not sell, the
burden Of proof is on them to show
that they have no unfair object in
view. There is no law to make them
sell. Under the law the majority
may squeeze the minority; may put
the thumb screws on it; may depresS
minority stock The law does not
make this robbery. We do not say
that that the Millikens have wrong
full motive in refusing any compro-
mise in this matter but we do say
that their conduct and utterances as
to four per cent. commissions indi-
Gates their motive.
But, says an outsider, the Mill
kens are not alone; they have allies
in Laurens. We content ourselves
with replying that such men as John
Madden, Robert Bell, O. 3. Simmons,
4. H. Martin and many others Of
Laurens. J. 7. Carter, of Virginia, all
the Charleston stockholders and
very large majority in number of all
the stockholders but not in shares
(four or five to one perhaps) are sat
isfed with Mr.. Lucas and are stand
ing by him.
A man in whom the Advertiser has
confidence and who is with Mr. Mil
iken in the fight is Mr.. John B.
Cleveland. 1t is significant that Mr..
Cleveland has tried to effect com7
promise-that tc favored the "give-
and-take' proposition. III. Clcvc-
land in this matter acted as The Ad-
vertiser expected. We regret that we
differ from him in this controversy
but our confidence in him has no; been
shaken. He is committed to the Mil
likin side but he would today be glad
TO see a settlement on q basis fair TO
all Sides 1t gives US pleasure to say
this of John. B. Cleveland; for we
have believed in him as an honorable
gentleman for % years and more that
we have known of him and known
him.
If a partner have one-third inter
est in a firm he can so to the courts
and force a fair settlement. Persons
holding one-third of the stock in
CORPORATION can't do it. If the Lau-
rens Mills were a firm the minority
holders could force a sale Of the
property and so compel the majority
to pay full value for all of it or else
to sell.
We are able to prove by Mr.. Mill
ken's own friends that the give-and-
take proposition is fair. Yet he re-
jects it.
Therefore, we think the time has
come when the minority stockholders
can bring this affair to the attention
of the wwhole state and ask the as
sistance Of the press and the legis-