The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-10-02
MAKES CHARGE
 OF SHORTAGE Receivers for New York Street Gar Lines. MILLIONS ARE INVOLVED Attorney General Jackson Hints at
 Fraud. Files Petition Asking for Receivers for New York City Railway Com- pany, and Metropolitan
 Street Railway Company. 

New York, Oct. 1.--Startling charges of extravagance and the negiectfui management or. if not that. failure to account for millions of dollars. are made by State Attorney General Jack son, in a petition filed today calling for the appointment of receivers for the New York City Railway Company and the Metropolitan Street Railway Companyf and also demanding the dis solution of the New York City Railway Company.
 The application for receivers was made to Justice Ford. of the Supreme Court, who issued an order for the de- fendants to appear in court on October .31, and answer to the complaint
 The Attorney Generals action fur ther complicates situation already considerably entangled by reason of the various inter-reiated corporations which control and operate the traction lines of Manhattan Island,
 Adrian H. Joline and DotIgfass Rob- inson were appointed receivers for the New York Railway Company by Judge Lacombe in the Federal Court several days ago and today the same receivers were appointed in the same court on application of the company's attorneys to act for the Metropolitan Street Rail- way Company.
 The New York City Railway Com- pany leases the lines of the Metropoii- tan Street Railway Company under q guarantee to pay per cent. dividends on the Metropolitan stock. This div idend has never been earned since the date of the ieaae and the Attorney General charges that the deficit to date amounts to more than $1e.000.000.
 The Attorney General declares also that the Interborough- Metropolitan Company. which absorbed the New York City Railway Company in 1906. as-' sumed all obligations of the New York City Railway Company and he sets forth that the New York City Railway Com- pany and its directors have taken no steps to force the Interbcrough-M Metro poiitan to carry out its obligations.
 Hiat at Fraud.
 The allegations limiting at fraud are made in connection with the eoFnpany's q constfuction account. the most sensa- tionaf being that a charge of $50ss 300 per. mile was made for the rebuilding of certain surface lines.
 Attorney General Jackson alleges that the appointment of the receivers for the New York City Railway Com pany by.Judge Lacombe in the United States Court was Illegal and demands that the defendants be directed to pay back all money and the value of all property which was lost and wasted by or through them." The defendants named are Daniel B. Hasbrouck, De Clifford Moorehead, Her. bert Vreeland, Richard W. Mead. Rob- ert A. C.. Smith. Charles E.. Warren, William Fahnstock, Solomon Guggen- helm, Ralph l.. Anderson Jr.. and the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. < The Attorney General declares that the New York City Railway Company, the lessee of the Metropolitan Stree, Railway Company. became insolvent shortly after the execution of the lease of the Metropolitan Street Rail- way Company under the per cent guarantee. and has continued to be in- solvent since. The liabilities of the stated to exceed it's assets by $1O.Oo0.000.
 Grave Charges.
 Continuing, the Attorney General says, that the defendants have unlaw- fully disposed of assets and property oe the defendant company; that during tho year 1902. defendants expended or claimed to have expended 31,2s4,sOs for engineering and experimenting ex penses in changing motive power of less than forty-three miles on double track road. this being at the rate of $30,000 per mile; that if such money was expended for any such purpose the defendants were negligent and wasted the funds in expending much more than a reasonable amount for such purposes; and if said money was not expended for such purpose. the expenditure has never been accounted for by the defena- ants; that during the year 1902, the de- fendants claim to have expended on the property of the defendants company the sum of $4,395s6S7 for laying new rails; thia being eQhivalont to the rato of over $1OS,000 a Amile. whereas the true costs and expenSes of laying such rails could not have exceeded the sum of $z2.000 a mile; that if said sum, as stated, was expended for that pur- pose, defendant wasted almost $3,500,- O0e of the assets of the defendant com pany and if the said money was not so expended. then the defendants have not accounted for sum amounting to A