The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1907-02-27

New York. Feb. 26-Thc attack said TO
havc been long threatened by r. H Har-
riman on Stuyvesant Fish, whom he had
deposed as president OF the Illinois Cen
tral. was made to-day by Hartman when
his examination was resumed before ,he
Interstate Commerce Commission. The
attack that Hartman made seemed 10 be
entirely unexpected and was not called
out by any question directed 70 Harri-
man. Even his own lawyers seemed 10
be on the point of trying 10 stop him
from making the charges that he did.
but Hartman waived them aside ana
went on to accuse MIR Fish OF having
misused the funds of the Illinois Central
while he was president
Makes Charges Against Fish.
Hartman charged Fish with having de-
posted half a million dollars Of the rail-
road funds with the Trust Company of
the Republic. OF which he was then
director. asserted that he had been forced
by his directors to withdraw that sum
on account of the condition of that trust
company. and that he subsequently put
the money back into the same trust COM
pany in sn effort 90 pad up account
Hartman asserted that he helped out
Fish himself at this time by loaning him
money; that Fish had loaned himself vast
amounts Of the funds Of the Illinois Cen
tral, and that after the collapse of the
Trust Company Of the Republic. Fish had
again loaned money 10 the Common
wealth Trust Company. the successor TO
the Trust Company Of the Republic. in
order, Hartman said, TO pad the accounts
there
He looked upon the Illinois Central
as his own personal property" said Har-
riman, referring to Fish
Declines to Tell About Deals.
After making this charge against Fish,
Hartman was asked if he had not sold
shares of the Illinois Central to his OWL
railroad, the Union Pacific; if he had not
formed a pool with Directors Rogers and
Stillman OF $1,000 Illinois Central shares
with the intention Of turping them over
TO the Union Pacific. and if he had any
interest in the 1O5.0O0 shares OF the Illinois
Central sold 10 the Union Pacific at the
same time by Koheu, Loeb & Co.
Hartman refused to answer these
questions in accordance with the objec-
tion raised by his counsel to-day, that It
concerned the private affairs of an indi-
vidual though he was asked by one Of
the commissioners if he did not think
that, in view OF the charges that he had
made against Fish, it was due in ali can
dor to the commission to inform them
about his own stock dealings Hartman
answer was that it was not 4 like condi-
ton.
Refuses to Answer son Principle"
Hartman. in his testimony to-day. ex-
planned the belated declaration of the
dividend of the Union Pacific and South
ern Pacific last summer, and it was
brought out that this dividend was vir-
tually decided upon by the directors at
their July meeting instead of the August
meeting, which was two days before the
announcement Of it was made.
Hartman was asked by the commission
and directed by them TO answer whether
or not he had bought Union Pacific stock
between the July meeting and the an
nouncement Of the dividend. He refused
to answer "on principle" he said Tvs
time.
The reason why the announcement was
rot made to the stock exchange until the
morning of the second day after the Au-
gust meeting, Hartman said. was be-
cause he had TO attend a funeral of a
friend which postponed the meeting of
the executive committee of the Union
Pacific until 50 late in the afternoon that
to announce a dividend then would have
been TO the advantage of the London
market instead OF the New York market.
Believes in 100 Per Cent Profits.
Hartman thought the 10 per cent divi-
dend JUSTIFIED, and later in the day,
in a rather remarkable exposition of his
CONTINUED ON SECOND PAGE.