The Washington herald., 1910-05-03
THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.

OF COLUMBIA.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Monday. May ?, 1910.
The Committee met It p. m, Hon
orable Samuel W. Smith Chairman
presiding
The Chalrman-Nr. Goldsborough, you
want a half an hour this evening?
Mr.. Goldsborough--I think probably I
will be able to get through in that
time; 1 shall try TO.
The Chairman-You surprise me
Mr.. Goldsborough-Is that so? I should
like very much to have the author OF 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-LIGHT
COMPANY-(Cont
Mr. GoIdsborOugh-Mr. Chairman and
gentlemen Of the Committee when I
left off at the last meeting I had about
concluded the review and analysis that
had the honor 20 submit 20 the Commit
tee Of the leading cases on this subject.
Although the great case Of the Chicago.
Milwaukee and St Paul Railroad Com
pany against Minnesota was not tech
nically decided by a united court. for
Justice Bradley delivered a dissenting
opinion IN il, nevertheless practically
represented a united court as TO the
fundamental principles that are applica-
bic 70 the case here at issue.
MIR. COudrey. may I present you with
copy Of my brief?
Mr.. Coudrey-I thank you.
Mr.. Goldsborough-You will find that
resume the argument at tha bottom of
page %, There is a copy here also for
Mr. HaZleton.
Mr.. Hazletcn-I thank you very much
Mr.. Goldsborough-And there are copies
for all the members Of the committee.
Mr.. Coudrey-Is this a copy Of the
hearing on April 2S which was published
in the papers-of course. a paid ad?
Mr.. GoldsbOrOugh-Yes. sir; OF my ar
gument
Mr.. COUdrey-While we have no right
10 criticise anything that the gas com
pany wants 10 spend money for still this
Is not fun copy Of the hearing on that
date?
Mr.. Goldsborough-It was impossible "a
make a fun report.
Mr.. Coudrey-Mr. WhItweu presented a
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
Mr.. Goldsborough-No, sir; but it is in
Cluded IN the proceedings Of the hearing
which are 20 be printed, II not already
printed. and I think they nave been
printed by the Government Printing Of
flee. Obviously. il 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 it is very es.
senual that we should have a full and
complete statement, especially the state
ment compiled by the assistant secretary
Of the company.
Mr.. GoldsbOrOugh-You have there g
full and complete statement Of the as
sistant secretary Of the company: all his
testimony, and also the statement Gov
ering the period Of twenty-four years
under review. I should have been GLAD
70 have published the whole thing In The
press. had there been time.
Mr.. Coudrey-Of course, we have NJ
right to say anything about how you
spend money. when II Is not our money
or the governments money but II wal
my idea as long as you were publishing
II, the report should be complete IN orde-
to show exactly what the statement OF
the company was.
Mr.. GoldsbOrOugh-It was too late. I
was HOO o'clock before we got through
I tried to condense what seemed to me tC
be the essential points in the testimony
Of Mr.. Whitwell so that the argumen
in the matter would be inteluglble. tha
being practically the official statement o.
the company as its case As I remarked
before, l should have been glad TO hav,
published all Of the testimony as hereto
fore. but that was simply impossible. II
fact, the last galley only went into tho
forms a few minutes before o'clock. al
II was
Now. to continue my, argument after
the review OF the case OF the Chicago
Milwaukee and st. Paul Railroad Com
pany, on page 25. at the bottom of tn,
page
As further evidence Of the fact tha
this reasoning is within the law as Iait
down in he leading cases on this subject
beg 10 refer you TO a case that has beer
more honored by the Supreme Cour'
than possibly any other State decision fl
the books. I refer TO Williams VS.. West
ern Union 80 n. Y. 162. which has nevei
been questioned anywhere from the da,
IL was delivered 10 the present hour. II
this case the court by a unanimous de
cision says: Indeed. so far as the sol
vency and responsibility of a corporation
is concerned, they are increased by ,
stock dividend where il has a surplus o.
property TO correspond 10 the amount O
shares issued. In such case the surplu,
property is secured and impounded fol
the benefit Of the creditors Of the cor
poration and for the public. so that there
after II can never be legally divided
withdrawn. or dissipated IN any way. S,
long as every dollar OF stock issued by Z
corporation is represented by a dollar o.
property, no harm can result TO indi
viduals or the public from distributinl
the stock TO the stockholders"