The San Francisco call., 1909-10-22

An answer was filed yesterday IN the
superior court by Attorneys Morrison,
Cope and Brobeck and Joseph J. Dunno.
counsel for the Oceanic steamship
company, in response to the suit
brought by Rudolph and Claus Angus
tus SpreckeIs, as executors of the viii
of Claus Spreckels, to have the Union
trust company removed as trustee of
The bond issue of the Oceanic steam
ship company.
The answer filed yesterday amounts
10 a sweeping denial of every charge
and allegation made IN the compialht
drawn for Rudolph and c. A. Spreckels,
and accuses them of acting in bad
faith in bringing the suit. In erect
IL also charges that their sworn as
sertions amount 10 an attack upon
she business judgment and acts or
their father. IN this connection the
answer calls attention TO the fact that
several OF the acts complained Of most
vcciferously by the plaintiffs were acts
authorized and sanctioned by Claus
Spreckels during his lifetime.
DENOUNCED HIS OWN POLITICS
Gus Spreckels. who is now appearing
as plaintiff against the oceanic
steamship company. is shown to nave
been during most of the company's life
time an active director Of its affairs,
and 10 have been supporter Of those
very business policies which he now
denounces as a coplaintiff with his
brother Rudolph. in the present action.
Both he and his father. Claus Spreckels,
were for many years among the largest
stock holders Of the Oceanic steamship
company and had large influence in
the direction OF its affairs.
The answer denies that the affairs
controlled by the John ID. Spreckels
& Brothers company. or that John d.
SpreckeIs controls the Union trust
company. attention being called TO the
fact that he is the owner of but "a
shares out Of q total OF 1900 of the
company's stock. Another charge 10
the effect that. through the influence
Of John d. Spreckels. the John d.
Spreckels & Brothers company was
made the general agent of the Oceanic
steamship company at monthly sal
AIRY Of $4,000, is likewise denied The
answer states that at the time this ap-
pointment was made neither John d.
nor Adolph B. Spreckels, now the real
defendants TO the present suit. were
directors of the Oceanic company.
FATHER SANCTIONED ACTS
The appointment of the John d.
SpreckeIs & Brothers company as
TIE answer declares. was made at q
time when Claus Spreckels and c. A.
Spreckels were directors Of that con-
Germ. ard while c. A Spreckels was
the owner OF third interest in the
John d. Spreckels & Brothers COM
pany. In other words. the very thing
now objected 10 so violently by Ru-
dciph and G. A Spreckels. as executors.
was a thing which their father himself
sanctioned, and TO which c. A. Spreckels
was a party. both as director of the
Oceanic steamship company and a the
owner OF 2 third interest in the John
d Spreckels & Brothers company.
The answer to the complaint asserts
that Of the s0e bonds of the Oceanic
steamship company claimed to be held
by Rudolph and c. A. Spreckels as
executors OF the will Of Claus Spreck-
els 30s have been distributed by de-
cree OF court TO the widow, Anna c.
spreckels.
BOND HOLDERS SIGN WAIVER
It is admitted that the interest on
the bonds OF the company falling due
an January ] and July l of this year
was not paid. but il is asserted that
this was because more than a major
itE Of the bond holders of the company
= gned a waiver requesting and in
structing the Union trust company, as
trustee. not to pay the interest, in
accordance with n definite clause of