The Washington herald., 1912-06-07
MAY ASK COURTS
TO DECIDE FIGHT
Action of Georgetown Gas Com
pany Displeases Washington
Stockholders.
REFUSED TO LET THEM
VOTE FOR DIRECTORS
Both Sides Give Out Statements
Defending Their Stand, While
Officials Say Naught.

Some Of the stockholders OF the Wash.
/ ington Gas Light Company may take
into the courts, It was reported yester.
| day, the action of the GEORGETOWN Gas
| Company minority stockholders Monday
! in denying the Washington Gas Light
| Company, which owns a majority OF the
stock Of the Georgetown Company, the
right TO vote for directors.
Some OF the owners of Washington Gas
stock, II was said, were unwilling that
the stock owned by their company in
Georgetown Gas should be denied repre-
! sentation, and were more unwilling that
what they deemed a right should remain
in question.
Howard S. Reeside. vice president OF
the Washington Gas Light Company.
said last night that it had been denied
the privilege to vote in the Georgetown
company stockholders election and had
acqUiesced and would drop the matter.
What action individual stockholders Of
Washington Gas might take, he said he
did not know but he believed there
would be no further agitation Of the ques-
tion at present.
He expressed the belief that consolida-
ton Of the two companies would be the
outcome Of the Georgetown company 8
action.
Praises Washington Company.
THE Washington GasIight Company
has always co-operated with the George
town company" Mr. Reeside stated.
The Washington company has been
brOad-minded in its relations with the
other company. Last year We had the
first intimation that there might be a
question Of our right TO vote in the
Georgetown company's elections.
Last year, minority holders OF the
Georgetown company wanted TO put a
mortgage on its property. The Washing
ton company was opposed to 1t. but voted
with the minority for a 100000 bond
issue.
During the summer Of 1911. while the
Georgetown company was constructing
its new plant. the Washington company
furnished gas for the Georgetown COM
pany.
When the Washington Company asked
II the Georgetown Company would give
board Of directors, the request was de-
MED
The attitude Of the Washington Gas
Light Company toward the Georgetown
Gas Company is friendly.
Il think that consolidation Of the two
companies will be the final outcome, and
therefore the less friction there is now,
the better"
Stockholders Of the Washington Gas
Light Company declare the Georgetown
minority has been inconsistent in using
the votes Of the majority stock held by
the Washington COMPANY to issue bonds
and denying the votes when the director
ate was to be elected. Such a course.
some believe, might put a shadow on
the bond issue.
Denies Inconsistency.
The Georgetown minority stockholders
deny there was inconsistency in the
courses pursued in the bond issue and di-
rectorate elections. Among the minority
it is believed, it was said last night, that
the law is well established in this country
that one company cannot intervene in the
management of another company by rea-
son Of the acquisition OF a majority Of
stock without express sanction Of law.
The Washington Gaslight Company. II is
contended, has not the express sanction Of
law for its acquisition Of the majority OF
the stock Of the Georgetown Company. II
was further asserted in controversion OF
the allegation Of inconsistency that the
Gaslight Company would not
have been permitted to vote on the bond
issue unless II had voted with the minority
holders who favored the issue.
The vote Of the majority in favor Of the
bond issue was an acquiescence rather
than an exercise of discretion, and was
not actually an exercise Of franchise,
a minority partisan said last night
The mOjority holders Of Georgetown
were not willing to give to Washington
Gas the larger representation on the
Georgetown directorate, the minority man
because il was understood that
the larger representation was to be the
basis Of a roposition that the George
town minority abandon its proposition
Of last year, namely that one CORPORA
tion has no right to dominate another
against the latter's interests and against /
the latters patrons interests
The fact that the charter OF the George |
town company requires that the presi- |
dent and at least six directors of the |
Georgetown company should be residents |
OF Georgetown, the minority claims. |
shows that the management of the COM ,
pany should be amenable to public senti- |
ment of the community it serves. This |
amenity would be rendered doubtful or /
impossible, it is alleged, II the Wash |
ngton Gas should have on the George !
town directorate the larger representa-
ton 1t requested.
Partisans Of both sides seemed unani-
nous in believing that consolidation Of !
The companies would be brought nearer
Oy the present differences. The expected
passage Of a public utilities bill which