Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1912-08-29
Why. o WHY?
To the Mineral Point Tribune :;

To the Mineral Point Tribune;
Dear Mr.. Editor The only informa-
ton that we have ever been able to get
in relation to the First National Bank
affairs we have gathered from your
paper and, while we appreciate the
same, we are looking the paper over
week after week to see if we can get
some more. In our eagerness we sug-
gest the following inquiries
Why is it that the depositors of said
bank have not got as convenient a place
to receive their dividends as they had
to deposit their money three years and
more ago
Why should they have TO so into the
basement of the Iowa County Bank
building and in the rear of Justice
court and where other kinds of business
is being transacted, to get small por-
ton of their legal rights? and
Why is it that creditors have to call
several times to get their dividends ?
Why is it that the place is not kept
open all the time during banking hours
instead of being closed frequently for
two or three hours at noon time?
Why is it that individual creditors of
| this "busted" concern are not allowed
to know why their money is tied up for
this long period, and can get no infor-
nation how much longer they will
have to wait?
Why presiding court official who is
director of a trust company can APP
point his trust company receiver of
funds and endorse extravagant charges
of the trust company's lawyers for
fees, commissions, etc, the same to be
paid out of said funds, while the right
full owners of the funds are forced to
wait until some imaginary technicalities
are thrashed out by balky machinery?
Why, after deducting the extrava-
giant fees something over $4,000, or
better than 300 for attorney services,
the balance of about $4,000 in the
hands of the trust company is not dis
tributed among the creditors? and
Why the receiver does not insist on it ?
Why the ridiculous Indifference and
extravaganza is not something like
feeding surloin to dogs?
Why is it not reasonable that the
luckless depositors should think and
feel that the receiver and his assistants
are more against than for them, if left
to Judge from action and comment
Why is it that the receiver himself
is not here to attend to the business
in person, instead of leaving this very
important matter in Indifferent and ir-
responsible hands?
Why is it that there has never been
a consultation by the government with
the sufferers most interested in the
litigation of the bankrupt estate?
Why doesn't the government seek to
settle with the directors on a basis
reasonable in the light of circumstances,
instead of trying to get the whole
pound of flesh and thus ruin well-inten-
toned men who have suffered to the
extent of many thousands of dollars
already, say nothing of the worry of
mind, wear of body, anguish Of family,
yet are willing to guarantee many
thousands more to perfect a liberal
compromise, such as will be much bet
ter for the depositors and have a set
Element now, rather than to wait for
a period of years, possibly twenty, and
then at heavy expense get a judgment
which would be difficult to realize from
A DEPOSIToR.
THE Tribune columns are open for
replies to any or all of the foregoing
queries.