New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-05-15
DEFEND RUTLAND SALE.
MeIIen and Brown Reply to MI
nority Stockholders.
DENY TRUST LAW VIOLATION
New Haven and Central Heads
Declare Mellen's System
Is Logical Owner.

charles : Mellen. president Of the New
York. New Haven x Hartford Railroad
COMPANY. and William c. Brown, presl-
Aa-t Of the New York Central & Hudson
rivor Railroad Company nled their answers
yesterday i'm the Supreme Court TO the &C
,,ors brought 10y several minority stock
nc,de-s Of the Rutland Railroad to prevent
IN. Nv York Central from disposing Of
that road 90 the New Haven company. The
,lairtff, few days ago obtained a tenn
norarv injunction restraining the carrying
ont Of Che deal
Mr. lfeueu went fully into tho charge that
collation. Of the sherman antitrust law
was contemplated, and ne denied also the
allegation that the change would be mimi
cal -o tha Rutland road. lie declared that
The change would Ice "A great benefit to both
the travelling public and 10 the stockhold-
crs because IL was purposed 10 improve the
MESSENGER and the freight services
As 70 the question Of control by the New
Haven which already has several other
lines operating in New England, Mr. Mellen
said that since these additional lines be
came consolidated with the parent organi-
zsti~n fra arrangements had remained tn"
ssrr- and that he had never tried to OK
ercise any control over them except the
voting Of the stock. lie added:
If + also become president Of the Rut-
land road ! should have no reason or an
dgcemer' 70 sacrifice the interests Of that
company"
In another part Of his affidavit the New
Haven president said Il have not been en-
bsrrasse5 hv any conflict OF interest for
there IS no such conflict OF interest
Nr Nauen called attention TO the own
srsh'r - The majority If the stock Of the
Boston q Maine Railroad by the New
Haven company. but he said the New
Haven had never exercised any control over
T.. except the voting Of the majority stock.
Nr Nelien was elected president Of the
Boston y Maine I'm 1910. He said that only
q few Of th- men employed by the New
Haven road We're also employed by the Bos
ton * Maine.
TIL management was independents As
20 tho Maine Central and the New York
Ontario 4 Western. Mr.. M~llen said. the
New Haven owns only a little more than
majority OF the stock in those TWO COM
rs0.es These roads complement one an
other is the way Mr. Mellen put II.
His interest as president Of the New
England Navigation Company induced him
20 try 10 buy the Rutland road, owned by
The New York Central. Il was a natural
expansion. and IL he was permitted TO be-
come president OF the Rutland it would en-
all. him 70 arrange proper service of trans
Tcr,stiou Of passengers and freight The
purchase 10y the New Haven company. Mr.
Nl.,eu represented. was fully justified. the
price agreed upon being the same as the
Wv York Central paid for the Rutland.
He said that he never thought Of squelch-
Ius the Rutland road as competing factor.
ills idea would be to make the competition
more effective. The route Of the Rutland
road. AIr. Mellen declared. does not run
parallel TO any Of the lines Of which he IS
now president
The sale Of the Rutland road ny the New
York Central TO the New Haven involves
the transfer Of F.04 shares Of stock Mr.
Brown said IN his affidavit that the latter
company bought 1851 shares Of the Rut-
Lana stock in lg15 and Ioo shares more IN
,a.S The total issue ls = so shares Tho
gross aarr.ngs I'm leot amounted to s. $1,000
and in 1911 they amounted 10 $4,000. The
surplus earnings in these two years We're
ys1N ~ and see 5l4 respectively
In February. 1911. the New York Central
sold 10 Mr. Melien. Lewis Cass Ledyard
and William Skinner. acting as commit
tee for the New Haven company. ., 40
shares OF Rutland stock. The New York
Central agreed last November 10 sell the
rest OF the stock Mr.. Brown said that The
Rutland road could be better operated hy
the New Haven company than BY the New
York Central