The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1910-05-03
Gives Detailed Information
as to Values, Profits, and
Dividends.
GIVES PRECEDENTS
FOR OPPOSITION
Fight Upon the Pending Resolu-
ton Based on Courts
Decision.

Ton Geslfzht Company, Attorney R H
GoldsbOroUgh resUming his argument:
THE COMMITTEE on TIE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
HOUSE OF REPR ESENTATIFES-
Monday, Nay . 1910
The COMMITTEES met al S P m, hon
Samuel W Smith chairman presiding
The ChaiTman-NIr- GOldSbOrOugh, you
want half an hour this evening"
Mr. GoldsbOrough-I think probably
VIII be able 10 get through in that
time. 7 shall Try to
The Chairman-You surprise me.
Nj GOldsbOrOUgh-Is that so2
thor OF the resolution CAIr. COudrey)
The Chairman-Of course. we have no
assurance that he via be here
STATEMENT OF RICHARD COLDS
BOROUGH, ESQ, COUNSEL FOR
THE WASHINGTON CsASLIGHT
MPANY-(COntiuued0-
Mr. GOldsboToUEh-AIr Chairman and
gentlemen Of the committee, when 7
left OF at the last meeting I had about
concluded the review and ANALYSIS that
] had the honor 70 submit 10 the com
mittee Of the leading cases on this sub
Jet Although the great case OF the
.Nn-CaEO, Milwaukee and St Paul Rail
road Company against Minnesota was
not technically decided by a united
court for Justice Bradley delivered a
dissenting opinion in U. nevertheless Il
practically represented q united court
IS 10 the fundamental principles that
are applicable 10 the case here AZ Is
sue
M Coudrey. may I present you with
COPY OF this brief2
Mr. Coudrey-I thank you
M Goldsborough-You viii find that
resume the argument at the bottom OF
page . There IS copy here also for
Nj Hazleton-I thank you very much
MI GOldsbOTough-AnG there are COPIES
Tor al the members OF the committee.
Mt. Coudrey-Is this a COPY OF the
hearing on April y which was pub
Asaed in the papers-of course. a paid
gument
Impossible TO Make Full Report.
Mr- Coudrey-WhiIe we have no right
70 criucise anything that the gas com
pany wants 10 spend money for, still
this Is not q full copy Of the hearing on
that dste2
Mr.. GoIdsborough-It vas impossible
TO make a fzT report
ny. COudrey-Ar. Whitweu presented
a statement that went into the details
OF the finances Of the company that was
not included IN that published state
meut. and II is not included in this
statement
1Ir- Goldsborough-No sir, but It Is
Included IN the proceedings Of the hear
ing which are 70 be printed, If not al
ready printed and I think they have
been printed BY the Government Print
inE Offce. Obviously, it would have
been impossible 10 nave published all
OF that hearing in one edition OF the
newspapers
Mr. CoudrsEAs long as we are going
into the matter, I think II Is very es-
eCnrial that we should have q full and
complete statement, especially the state
r1ent compiled by the assistant seCTe-
rary Of the company
NIr Goldsbor0ugh-T 4 have there z
fun and complete statement OF the as
EIstaut secretary OF the company; al his
testimony, and also the statement Gov
erinE the period OF twenty four years
under review I should have been glad
N have published the whole thing in the
rress. had there been time
lIr- COudrey-Of course, We have no
right 10 say anything about how YOU
spend money when It Is not our money
or the Governments money, but IL was
my idea as long as you were publishing
Il the report should be complete II or
der 10 show exactly what the state
uenc Of the company vas
Mr. GoldSboroUEh-It was too late II
vas Il O'clOcE before we cot through I
tried 10 CoudeuSe what seemed 10 me to
be the essential points in the testimony
o. Mr.. Whitwel, so that the argument
IN the matter would be Ineligible. that
being practically the Official statement
OF the company as It's case As re-
marked before I should have been glad
70 have published all Of the testimony as
heretofore but that was simply iupos-
sf6Ie- In fact the -ast galley only went
into the forms g, few minutes before 3
O'Clock. as IL was
Vow. to continue my argument, after
the review OF the case Of the CHICAGO,
Milwaukee and St Paul Railroad Com
pany, on page >, at the bottom OF the
As a further evidence Of the fact that
this reasoning Is within the law as laid
down in the leading cases on this sub
jet / beg 10 refer YOU 10 a case that
has been more hOnOred BY the Supreme
Court than possibly any other State de-
Cisio0 in the books refer 10 Williams
vs. W eSJern Mon, % y Y. 10. which
has never been questioned anywhere
from me day Il was delivered 10 the
present nOuT- In this case the court
by an unanimous decision SAYS IN
deed 50 far as the solvency and re-
SDonSlbllITE OF a CORPORATION Is con-
cernedr they are increased BY q stock
dividend where Il has a surplus Of 0ror-
erty TO correspond 20 the amount oe
Sl2TeS issued In such case the surplus
property IS secured and impOunded for
the benefit Of the creditors Of the cor
pOration and for the public 50 that
thereafter IL can never be legally divided
withdrawn or dlssipsted in any wav.
So long as every dolaIr Of stock issued
by a corporation IS represented by a
dollar Of property no harm can result
tributing the stock to the stockholders
Finally as conclusive Of controversy
I beg leave 10 cite the case which went
I'D from this DlStr1Ct involving q stock
dividend. declared by the Washington
Gas Light Company, the defendant
practically under suspicion Of intent n
CNlL4LAAt a 44hE D4LGAASEf III LLle case
bar. The court saws IN Gibbons vs.
Mahon. 136 Z s, $50:
Therefore. when a distribution Of
earnings is made by a corporation
among its stockholders, the question
whether such distribution IS an sppor-
tionmeut OF additional stock represent
ing capital, OF a division Of profits and
income depends upon the substance and
Intent OF the action Of the corporation
as manifested by its vote OF resolution
Gnd ordinarily a dividend declared in
stock or bonds Is to be deemed ca pfraI
and dividend IN money IS TO be deemed
income OF each share
Takes Nothing From Property.
"a stock dividend really takes nothing
kreu1<tAs pE7PsEzy Of the corporation,