New-York tribune., 1907-08-06
REPLY TO WABASH PLEA
J. Pollitr Denies HIS fiction Has
Hurt Road s StOCh.

Through his counsel James POLITE flied ycSt"T-
day in the United States Circuit Court ms answer
to the cross bill in the action he originally lhSt'-
tutcd against the Wabash Railroad company,
Robert G Cloury. George J. Gould FREDERICK y.
Delano, the Mercantile Trust COMPANY, the II hlled
States Mortgage and Trust Company ana "'u''S-
His original action to restrain the Ndpdsi'
company from retiring its outstanding deoen'ureS
and bonded Indebtedness through an interchange
of new interest bearing bonds, with anueo Pre-
rnums of common and preferred stock MI. folli'%
held that the exchange was Illegal ana aSN.a . ee
federal court restrain the corporate oiici''S
from effecting il. ,o NC
Tho road contcnded that such eXchahgt was
made necessary. as the terms of the orlsihai 'H'-
standing bonds prevented the company from using
a part Of its earnings in making necessary ana
rnucb needed betterments After filing its answer
to the two suits brought by MI FoI'itH' H'
Wabash company filed cross bill complaining "I
many of the o. the complainant MI oillN me-
then made an application 10 consolidate MS tNo
actions against the comPany nGt on 1ht 4,t a,,d
ne latter the declined 20 grant tillS. anu
ordered the actions continued originally begun
Among other things denied by MI foliit~ - ''"
the institution o suits has in any way injured
the financial standing of the .Waoash toindlH ~
the value of stocks and bonds II '!t l''u
stocks and bonds have suffered depreciation as
claimed. he says. it has been due to ih@ etIleIa
dov-nuard tendency of the market and the mani
festv bad policy the road of converting d non
interest paying security into vastly IaTe'f % 'aS
of obligation in the form Of interest rearing 'Vu1
with more preferred ana common stocB- ult 80"
Of which, Mr.. Pollitz insists was i'0''' ''9
ception illegal. ,.
Relative claim of thc W NapaFn '''i!'eiiiS
that the complainant had begun similar sun III
ST Louis the original complainant says 'He 7I
Louis court has declined thus far 10 pass 'P''
the issues involved and mas in no way pass" a"
yereelv upun the merits Of the case. '',S W "
souri, court Pollitz asserts. stated oi'1''E ''
il would not take the responsibility OF SloPp-"N
large a scheme Of financial organization pil ",'i'
leave 10 the company the responsibility "i :"
continuance OF action. II improper, IL '''''H ~
rassed upon later by the proper trIoGha
Nj Pollitz explains his reason for asking 40 ~" -
.alidate the two actions by stating ;hal tl'. IN
suit was to restrain the exchange OF securil.es'
tho second to have the exchange declare" INV
and that as the road had practically cohi'el'u 80 80.
exchange he deemed II wise 10 cohSoIu''e 'i''
suits.
Mr. POLITE. however, denies that All persons ,,I ,I
teresied were desirous that the deo"ntures 7io"It
be so exchanged and alleges that me H'.nrI t, -.
q ono 90 par value Of the bonds nave feiuSe" ~
denosit them for exchange rs proV'oed I"' '"
the original plan. - ,t. .h,. I,e
WIN much emphasis Mr.. Pollitz denies ina, Il"
+. NOT the bona ade owner of his stock or '''A'
he &c holding Il for the benefit Of any "'h"r Pc
COZ, or y,ersone or that il was pUTchaSed Su'
ouent 10 the publication Of tn" plan 10 feI'i' |
outstanding bonded Indebtedness Of the roah "H
exCbarge Of deherturcs. or so bought /" o''''' >
has,s Of any subsequent legal action
Tho dismissal @ the crosF-bin Is asked