The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-02-27
HARTMAN RESERVED
REGARDING HIMSELF
Talked Freely About the Union Pacific,
the Illinois Central and Stuy-
vesant Fish.
When II Came to Individual Stock Transactions He Refused to
Answer on Advice of Counsel.

tone. His question apparently related to
the Fish incident, and Mr.. Hartman
Yes. in 1903 Mr.. Fish deposited over
funds with the Trust Company of the Re
PuDHc-f We, the directors. [ mean. imme-
ulateiy directed the secretary to with
draw S1 TINS money and it was done
MI Hartman said that later in the
same year Mr.. Fish deposited with the
Trust Company of America large amounts
OF Illinois Central funds to pad the trust
companys statement" Notwithstanding
the BOARD s action, continued Mr.. Harri-
man, in 1904, Mr.. Fish again began to de-
post money of the Illinois Central with
cerlaln trust companies in order to pad
statements"
Loaned Money to Himself.
In addition TO that he loaned to him
SELF large amount Of money during that
summer, without the KNOWLEDGE I he
leve. of the board of directors. and if
was based on these things that the mat
ter was taken up with the intention of
having Mr. Fish deposed. l interfered
In the interests of Mr. Fish loaned him
81. 100000 TO take up his obligations to the
Illinois Central. and let il remain with
nm Tor two years He paid it back grad
uaiiy until the securities which he had
up appreciated in value and he could ar
range for the matter somewhere else or
dispose of some Of il.
The trouble with Mr. Fish" said Mr.
Hartman. was that he looked upon the
Illinois Central as his personal prop
erty.''
He told how Mr. Fish had contracted
Tor the construction of the Indianapolis
company. without the consent or action
of the board. when the board had previ-
ously expressed its disapproval.
In his explanation of the sensational in
c!dent, Mr. Hartman, for the first time
spoke with warmth.
Again Refused 10 Answer.
There was renewal of the objection to
the commissions right to inquire into
Mr.. Harriman's private stock trausac-
tions. and the matter took the same
course as yesterday. The commission
ruled that the question must be answered
Then followed a formal refusal. and thu
record was formally completed. The first
objection was against revealing the
amount of holdings of Mr.. Hartman and
his associates in the Santa Fe and the
second as to the existence of pool or
private understanding to stock in the
Illinois Central.
The most interesting objection was as to
possible speculation in Union Pacific
stock in July and August last. and par
ticularly on the day the announcement of
the dividend was held up. Mr.. Hartman
first testified that he knew of no specu-
latiOn, and explained that the directors of
the road already held much of the stock.
Commissioner Lane wanted to know if
the witness had himself bought any stock
after he knew that there was to be
dividend.
Attorney John G. Milburn quickly
blocked the question with an objection
The witness created laughter when
declared he had bought Union Pacific at
% in 1905 in expectation of the dividend
i'm 1876.
The objection was renewed throughout
the day whenever Mr.. Kellogg referred to
the stock transa CtiOns of the witness in
the railroads under Inquiry. and so all
examination along that line was blocked.
No steps have been taken yet for testing
the question in the courts, but Chairman
Knapp has shown great care in laying
the foundation in the record every time
the proposition has occurred.
RockefeIIer's Rakeoff.
Kellogg traced the purchase Of South
ern Pacific stock by the Jnion Pacihc
and oregon Short Line, carrying it down
to the famous sale of 10000 shares to
William q. Rockefeller.
THE sale was made on a reciprocal
agreement made with Mr. Rockefeller"
said the witness, by which Mr.. Rookie
Teller could sell US the stock back on May
]. 1904. if he desired, at the same price.
Mr. Rockefeller paid S6000.O00 in cash and
gave good collaterals- 1t was condi-
tional sale.
..The sale was a protective measure.
pure and simple. There had been formed
pool to speculate in the Southern Pa
eific stock The pool had acquired 100000
shares of stock, and appealed to the
share holders and courts ana tried 10 get
enough proxies to prevent us from con-
tinuing in the management of the prop
erty. The pool planned to sell its own
stock to advantage. We feared that they
would get a temporary injunction to pre-
vent US from voting the stock In order
TO prevent this we took this method to
enable us. with other proxies, to protect
ourselves against this speculative inter-
est"
Mr. Hartman frankly admitted that the
transfer OF stock was to place II in the
hands of some one who would act against
this pool.
Continued on Page 2.