The Washington times., 1912-07-21

The strained relations between the
Georgetown Gas Company and its chief
est shareholder, the washington Gas
Company, are the subject of much COM
ment In financial circles.
Expressions of wonder are general.
that at this late date the Georgetown
/ airectors, large owners in the minority
interest. should have discovered the
fact-so they claim-that the washing
| ton Gas Company has no right to own
its $3.50 shares of Georgetown stock;
has no legal right to vote this stock at
elections. after voting the entire block
| for nearly two decades-and last, but
by no means least, that the Washing
ton Gas Company has no right to re-
ceive the, semi-annual dividend on it's
Georgetown stock holdings, even though
they have regularly receiving these divi-
dends for years.
A ten minutes of IL o'clock discovery.
In what way. Just how or wherefore
| would 1t legalize these holdings IL the
Washington Gas Company should buy
the holdings of the directors OF the
Georgetown company and their
friends2
The claim is made that 1t would make
It unanimous-ergo, there would be no
objectors to contest the right.
But II the objections made will hold
now, Il would still be an available club
to any one who desired to stir up a
case Of trouble.
! The price asked. by the minority hold
ers, $160 a share. is entirely unreasonable
when the returns to the possible pur-
chaser are considered. say something
near ~ per cent. and money in Wash
ington is worth mofe than this rate,
even in times of rare plenty-the Gov
ernment charging 2 per cent.
| The Washington Gas Company cannot
distribute its holding Of Georgetown gas.
$3.50 shares, equally among the holders
of it's own 10000 shares Of stock-impos-
sible.
A sale might be made and the pro
1 ceeds be distributed pro rata, but 1t ID
| question whether the Washington
Company cares to part with its George
| town stock, Just as II is not a certainty
that the Georgetown minority-actine
as the majority-would care to pay $l6t
a share for 1t.
1t is a decidedly interesting situa-
ton.
The case will probably not go into
the courts for adjustment, as the
Georgetown directory and the Wash
ington Gas interests are neither free
from taint, II taint there be, or ques-
ton of law, having permitted things tc
| run all these years, only to call a hal
for a purpose that might or might
not be questioned.
In courts Of equity, clean hands art
a necessary requisite of a plaintiff.
In the meantime a number Of share
| holders have asked the Washington
Gas officials what is being done to pro
tect their rights and the diplomatic
answer is every care Will be taken e
! conserve the rights Of shareholders
There are evidences here and there
that would seem to indicate prepared
ness for the early opening or cam
paign for the annual election Of tht
Washington Gas Company; even at thii
early date, and many insiders vii
watch the market for evidences Of &C
cumulation that may develop with th'
advent Of the fall activity. Wonder I
a sale OF minority holdings at $l6
would facilitate a fight for control?
The Washington Railway and Elec
trio Company recently issued $l49, 900 Al
to take up underlying Brightwood IS.
The Potomac Electric Light anc
Power Company also issued $4SS,OoO 20
tomac Consolidated SIS.
II might be OF interest to those doine
business with banks to know that there
is no law that requires the certihcatioI
of checks-even II the maker has no
asked that his checks be not certinet
and there are ample funds to his credi
to make certihcation within the law;
A bank that has been drawn upon BY
a depositor on balance created py ta'
deposit of check or checks on OUTSIDE
points (while checks were In transit
mas a positive claim on the maker o.
the check or checks for the amour
that has been withdrawn. should th'