The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-04-11
EQUITABLE
 HEARING UP Hyde Desires to Inter-
 Vene. SHEPPARD sPoKE FOR LORD Declared Naturalization Would
 hiean Ruin. Charter, He Says, Is UnaIterabIe and Cannot be Amended and Proposed Scheme Would Render Policy
 Holders PowerIess.
SHEPPARD ,P0KE FOR LORD

New York. April 10-The hearing in the application of Franklin B. Lord, a stockholder of the Equitable Life Assu- rance Society for an injunction to re- strain the officers and directors of the society from carrying through their naturalization plan was resumed today before Justice Maddox in the Supreme Court. Brooklyn.
 At the opening of the hearing Sam uel Untermeyer, acting as Attorney for James H. Hyde and William H, McIn- tyre, respective first and fourth Vice. President of the society, asked leave to intervene in the proceedings. He said the interests of his clients were vitaliy important and that they should have opportunity of presenting their case before the court should reach a decision. Justice Maddox granted two days for Untermeyer to file brief or appear again, in person to argue his motion to intervene.
 Edward H. Shepard, attorney for Mir. Lord. then addressed the court. setting forth that Mir. Lords interests would De pre1udtcfaily affected if the mutuali- zation plan became effective. and argu- ing that the officers of the society should be enjoined from putting the plan into operation,
 MT. shepard said in support of Mir. Lords contention against the plan of naturalization: We hold that the prop erty rights of the stockholders cannot be taken away without due process of law. And even if the power of amend- ment of the charter were given to the board which 1t is not. power to amend the charter Is not right which allows the destruction of the rights of the property holders"
 He declares that the present charter or the Equitable was unalterable and un-amendable and provided for by a 5 l-2 per cent. each six months. "The plan of the Equitable,' he said, Ifs n mutual one, the shares of which are to be applied to the purchase of annuities. The safeguard of the company lies in the body of stockholders In 1904 there was a surplus of $S0,000, 900 and after the most liberal provisions for liahiii- es thsre stih 9remains a sum of SIC. 900. .0o0."
 MT. Shepard declared the amended charter would permit the Equitable surplus to get into the hands of men who did not care anything about the policyholders' interests. It would be possible under the amended charter for the agent to so draw the policies that the controller would be able to snap their fingers at the policyholders, he declared. Whereas, now 1t required a $5,0O0 pol icy to entitle a man to vote, MT. Shepard said, under the amended char ter the agent could so draw policies that one could take out fifty $1O0 poli- cies instead of one $5.OOO policy and | thereby have five votes. The result would be hurtful, Mir. Shepard declared. William B. Hornblower representing the Equitble Life Assurance Society, replied to MT. Shepard. He said he represented no individual officer or director, but the society at large. Upon the advice of counsel, Mir. Hornblower said. President James w. Alexander had made no statement relating to the controversy between the officers. He had. however, made an affidavit In re- ply to various assertions on which the Lord suit in the courts was based.
 MT. Hornblower then read to the court an affidavit signed by Mir. Alex ander in which the latter denied that the naturalization of the Equitable had been effected because of any rivalry between the officers of the company. MT. Alexander stated that 570 shares out of a total of 1000, had been voted upon the proposition and had decided In favor of mutulization.
 Continuing his argument, MT. Horn blower said the one thousand shares of stock had absolute control of the company's interest. He declared that the stockholders were entitled to their ' per cent dividends and would con- tInue to receive them. Nothing would be taken from the owners of the stock except the right to vote for some Of the directors. Mir. Hornblower con- troyerted the contention of Mir. Shepard that the Legislature had no right to alter or repeal a charter unless the original charter shall contain such q provision.