Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-05-03
- lAdvertiscmentD
THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT
go OF COLUMBIA. -

- advertisement,
THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT
80 OF COLUMBIA.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
- ~ Monday, May 2. 1910.
The committee met at p.m... Honor
able Samuel W. Smith chairman pre-
siding.
The Chairman-Mr Goldsborough, you
want a half an hour this evening!
Mr.. Goldsborough-I think probably
will be able to get through In that Tune
1 shall try to.
The Chairman-You surprise me.
Mr.. Goldsborough-Is that so? l should
like very much to have the author Oh the
resolution (Mr. Coudrey) here.
The Chairman-Of course. we have no
assurance that he will be here.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD COLDS
BOROUGH, ESQ. COUNSEL FOR
THE WASHINGTON Gas LIddT
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
Mr.. Goldsborough--Mr. Chairman ana
gentlemen Of the COMMITTEES. when l lett
off at the last meeting had etout con-
cluded the review and ANALYSIS that
had the honor to submit to the commit
tie. of the leading cases on TINS sup3ect'
Although the great case OF the Chicaso'
panyF against Minnesota was not teen
nicaEy decided by a united court. Tor
Justice Bradley delivered a dissenting
opinion N It, nevertheless practlcany lsp-
resented a united court as to the funda-
-i5t ntaI principles that are applicapie u
Inc case here at issue.
.Mr Coudrey, may 1 present you with
c1S OF my brief?
Ar. Goldsborough-You will find that
,suIne the argument at the bottom OF
sage D. There is copy here also ior
". Hazleton:
Mr.. Go dsborough-And there are cop
les for all the members of the committee
Mr.. Coudrey-Is this copy of the
hearing on April o. which was pu6iisneo
In the papers-of course. paid ad!
Mr.. Goldsborough-Yes. sir; of my ar
mfr. Coudrey-while we have no right to
crft1cise- anything that the gas company
not a full copy Of the hearing on tnat
date?
MI Goldsoorough-It was impossible to
make q full report.
statement that went into the details OF
the finances of the company that was
not INCLUDED in that published statement
and it. is not included in this statement
cluded in the proceedings of the hearing
which are to be printed. II not ALREADY
printed and / think they have been
printed. by the government printing OF
fee. Obviously. it would have been I'M
possible to have published all OF that
hearing in one edition Of the newspapers
Mr. COudrey-As long as We are going
into the matter. I think II Is very es.
sfntial that We should have run ano
complete statement. especially the state
menf compiled by the assistant secretary
OF the company.
Mr. Goldsborough--You have there
full and complete statement OF the as
sistant secretary of the company; all MS
testimony, and .also the statement COW
erinx the period of twenty-four years
under review. l should have been gao
to have published the whole thing in the
press had there been time.
Mr.. Coudrey-Of course. We have no
right to say anything about how you
spend. money, when lit Is not our money
or the governments money. but was
my idea as long as you were puoHshihE
IL the report should be complete In Oroer
to-shew exactly what the statement OF
the company was.
Mr.: Goldsberougfl-1t was too late. IL
was IL O'Clock before We got through.
I tried to condense what seemed TO me 10
be the essential points in the testimony
on Mr. Whitweil, so that the argument
in thA- matter would be intelllgibfe, thaL
being practically the official statement OF
the company as its case. AS ! remaraKeo
before I should have been glad 10 nave
published all of the testimony az hereto
fore. but that was simply fmpossipie IN
fsct the last galley only went into the
forms a. few minutes before 3 O'CLOCK as
1t was.
Now. to continue my argument, AFTER
tho review OF the cast of the Chicago,
MiIwaukee and St Paul Railroad Com
ranv on mage %, at the bottom OF the
page
A further evidence of the fact that
this reasoning is within the law az iao
T.,
I beg to refer you. to a case that mas oeen
more honored by the Supreme Court
than possibly any other state decision In
the books l refer to Wiiliams VS.. VS..
been questioned anywhere from the Gay
il was delivered to the present, hour- IN
this case the court by unanimous de-
cisfon saws: Indeed, SO FAR as the SOL
ysncy and responsibility of a corporation
are concerned. they are Increased py q
stock dividend where IT has surplus OF
property to correspond to the amount Oh
shares issued. In such case the surplus
r1onerty ia secured and impounded for
the benefit of the creditors OF the cor
poration and for the public. so that tnere-
after il can never be- legally olVioeu.
withdrawn, or dissipated in any way. 80
ione AZ every dollar Of stock issued by a
CORPORATION Is represented by a dollar OF
property, no harm can result TO individ-
uals or the. PUBLIC from distributing the
stock to the stockholders
Finally as conclusive OF controversy, l
bag Leave to cite the case which went up
from this District involving stock divi-
dend declared by the Washington Gas
IJaht Company the defendant practically
under suspicion OF Intent to commit a
like ofYeense to the casa at bar The
court says in Gibbons vs. Mahon. 1875 L.
g. $50:
Therefore when a distribution OF
earnings is made b. a corporation among
its stockholders. the question whether
such distribution Ia an superintendent OF
additional stock representing capital. or
division Of profits and income. depends
upon the substance and intent OF the &C.
ton of the corporation. as manifested by
It's vote or resolution: and ordinarily q
dividend declared. in stock or. bonds Is to
be deemed capital. and dividend IN
money. Is to be deemed income OF each
share.
"A stock dividend really takes nothing
from the property. OF the corporation
and ADDS nothing TO the interests of the
shareholders Its property is, not dfmin-
ished, and their interests are not In
creased. After such q dividend. as before
the corporation has the title In IA
teresfs therein of all the shareholders are
represented by the whole number OF
shares;i and the proportional interest OF
each shareholder remains the same. The
only change is In the evidence which
represents that interest. the new shares
and the original shares together repre-
senting the same proportional intsree,
that the original shares represented be-
fore the issue of the new ones"4sass
Now let US see, II we cannot Prove
conclusiyely-so conclusively that ''hl