The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-09-27
FISH REPLIES
TO MR.. HARAHAh
Saws the Point at Issue is the
Rescue of Illinois Central
From U. P. Clutches.
AGAIN ATTACKS HARTMAN
STORY OF THE BORROWED
MONEY NOT NEW.

New York, Sept 26-Stuyvesant Fish
tonight made public a reply to circu-
lar letter sent out on Tuesday last by
President Harahan OF the Illinois Cen
trail, in which he declares the charges
made by Mr.. Harahan were not new,
but had beeen published long ago, and
each met by me and disposed of.
But the one point at issue TO be de-
cided by the stockholders of the Hi
nois Central at the coming annual meet
Fish.
'eThat issue is this: Shall the Illinois
Central become mere feeder and rat
tener of the Union Pacific? Can any
such perversion of the purposes and OPP
pOrtunities Of the Illinois Central be
profitable to the stockholders? VIII IL
linOis Central stockholders submit to hay
ing all of their voice and power in the
management and control of their prop
erty delegated to one man. under the
power of attorney plan which Mr.. Har-
Timan has so adroitly used to his own
profit?
Mr. Fish then quotes from the bylaws
of the Union Pacific to show how this
could be done, and continues;
Charges of Hartman.
a certain interest does, however, at
tach to some of the speciOuS excuses
now put out by Mr.. Hartman and his
financial associates for my having been
Ousted.
And there is also interest attaching
to the reasons why, 1t has been neces-
sary to change and modify those ex-
cuses so often.
''The circular of Sept "a. which is
fathered by Mr.. Harahan, shows on Its
face that ii emanates from Mr.. Harri-
man in that it contains precisely the
same allegations that he had injected
into his testimony before the interstate
commerce commission last February"
Mr. Fish here the TpDlV n these
charges, which was widely published at
the time. and says:
Ground Was UntenabIe.
But the reason given last February
by Mr. Hartman for having turned me
out of the presidency of the Illinois Cen
tral was by no means the only one
which he had given. At the last meet
ing of the stockholders of the Illinois
Central Railroad company, held on Oct
i. 1906, Mr.. Hartman and his attorney,
Mr.. Cromwell made their fight solely on
the ground that / would not consent to
the election into the Illinois Central
board Of another director of the Union
Pacific-Southern Pacific system.
New Charges Necessary.
But when called to testify before the
interstate commerce commission Mr.
Hartman could not stand on either the
proposition that ne had quarTeled with
me because | would not add to the Union
Pacific-SoUthern Pacific representation in
the Illinois Central board, or on the
vague generalitieS of the letter of Nov.
Z 1906, which he had caused the other
directors to join with him in signing and
handing to me at the opening of the
meeting of the board of directors held
on that day. Nor yet on the statement
that he was and had been the princi-
pal owner of Illinois Central stock, be
cause il had just then been proved in
the hearing before the interstate COM
merce commission that he had sold his
Illinois Central holdings to the Union
Pacific in July of 1896. Nor yet on the
statement that the Illinois Central had
not grown and progressed as that was
emphatically contradicted by the annual
reports of that company which were in
the possession of the commission. Hence
the necessity for him to invent yet an
other charge, which he did by trumpinS
up an accusation against me in respect
to matters which had happened four
years before. which were. and had al
ways been fully shown on the books of
the company and were perfectly well
known TO the directors of the Illinois
Central Railway company in the autumn
of 1903 and again in 1904 and for third
time in 1906"
Put Up Collateral.
Concerning the loan by him as presi-
dent of the Illinois Central to Mr.. Ores
ser. Mr.. Fish says that it was made on
collateral which at the time was mar
ketable and abundant"
After the failure Of the Dresser firm
the collateral was sold at a loss, but, -
says Mr.. Fish, IF my personal enemies
can only claim that caused the company
a single small loss in respect to the mil
liOns-I might say hundreds of millions
loaned in the meanwhile (more of il TO
Mr.. Hartman than any other indi-
ViduaD / am content to let the matter
rest there It is needless to add that on
no other loan made by me. and of course
on none TO ME. did the Illinois Central
Railroad company ever lose dollar
Nor need I refer to the so-called in
VpStmGnr in .JUlV- 1906 hN Mr. H1TTfDa n
and his associates. of about $3.50 90. 600
of the money of the stockholders of the
Union Pacific, in the purchase from him
and them OF their securities, which have
in the meanwhile deprecated by some
S25,Oe9,690 more or less.
Differences Began in 1904.
But as the Union Pacific party has
seen fit to go back into the ancient
history Of the Illinois Central. 1 may as
we'll say now as at another time that
my differences with Mr. Hartman anG
Charles A. Peabody, who were then, as
now, also directors of the Union Pa
cific began in 1904, when they sought
to have the board OF directors of the
Illinois Central Railroad company dele
gate the powers vested in ii by the char
ter 10 an executive committee, and Of
fered me membership therein and the
craftsmanship thereof. This | prevented
Then began the large purchases of II
Iinois Central shares by, or through
Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which were secretly
turned over to the Union Pacific in July
1906"
ENOUGH PROXIES SECURED