New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-07-17
GIBSON ANSWERS LAMAR
Denies He Accused the u. P. Of
Forging Its Books"
GIVES ROAD CLEAN BILL
Public Accountants Call Charges
of Dubious Bookkeeping
UnWarranted.

The Union Pacific Railroad Company
made public yesterday the contents Of a
letter received from Thomas Gibson. re-
lating 10 the recent testimony OF David
Lamar. otherwise known as the Wolf
of Wall Street" before the Senate Lobby
Investigating Committee at Washington.
Lamar testified that his attack upon the
balance sheet of the Union Pacific system
for the fiscal year 1901 was based OF state
ments made by Gibson in two market
letters dated November . and 90 1910
These statements were published eXclu-
sively in The Tribune on July 2. the day
following the astounding assertion Of
Lamar that the Union Pacific had forged
its books to the extent of 1s2,cp.cD.
Mr.. Gibson, who dsavows any conncc-
ton with Lamar. acknowledges the error
OF his former statements in his letter TO
the Union Pacific under date OF July Z,
from which the following is quoted:
al did not use the word forgery in the
documents published nor infer that any
one had lost a copper cent by the alleged
elimination Of liabilities. | simply char
acterized II as dubious bookkeeping.
From the figures produced ! criticised
in my own mind and In my publications.
what appeared to be an eNpedient OF
accounting which permitted of the use OF
assets twice as collateral. Even II such
employment OF securities as collateral
should turn out advantageously for the
railroad and its stockholders. / thought 1t
bad business practice.
I'm the highly complicated business OF
railroad accounting II is easy 10 make an
error. either In producing or Analysing
the reports. After a careful re-eXamina-
ton OF the balance sheets In question
am convinced that in claiming dubious
bookkeeping in the balance sheet Of 1901
was wrong, and consider it my duty TO
withdraw that statement"
Messrs. Price. Warehouse & CO.. GER
titled public accountants, VINO were re-
quested In August, 1901. TO suggest a form
Of consolidated balance sheet for the
Union Pacific system, I'm letter to G. Il.
Seger. vice-president and controller Of the
road, under date for July II, explained I'm
detail the bookkeeping which was the sub
jet OF Lamar's assertion that the sum
of 100000 or its equivalent had been
entered twice on the asset side Of the bal
snce sheet. Their statement is as fol-
lows:
'ln examining the report for the year
ending June %, 1900 Ghe last report is
sued at that date. we found that I'm the
balance sheet there were included under
the heading Cost OF. Road and Equipment
Ill capital assets of the Oregon Short
Line Railroad Company and the Oregon
Railroad d Navigation Company. and un-
der the heading of Bonds and Stocks
owned the bonds and stocks OF these
two roads owned by the Union Pacific
and its proprietary companies. the par
value OF these stocks being also included
among the liabilities.
"In proposing a form Of consolidated
balance sheet we recommend that the
duplication Ia the assets and liabilities
should be discontinued and that stocks
and bonds OF the Oregon Short Line Rail
road Company and the Oregon Railroad
& Navigation Company owned within the
system. amounting at June 90. 1900, TO
So, 706, 534. should be eliminated from the
asset of bonds and stocks In the consoli-
dated balance sheet and that the CORE
spending liability should he eliminated
from the capital stock liabilities.
THE consolidated balance sheet of
June 3O 1901. was prepared in conformity
with this recommendation and. In our
opinion. correctly stated the true position
OF the Union Pacific system toward the
public by eliminating from both sides OF
the balance sheet all stocks and bonds
not held by the public.
1.-The statement in Mr. Thomas Glib
sons special market letters Of November
20 and November 90. 1910. that all this
duplication Of liabilities on account of the
oregon Railroad a. Navigation Company
and the oregon Short Line, amounting TO
$50 706.j3i. was eliminated. but the CORE
spending duplication OF assets was not
eliminated and remained as before is
untrue and based on an entire misappre-
hension Of the accounts. and il follows
therefore. that his references To an 'ex-
pedient of accounting and dubious book
keeping i'm connection with the balance
sheet of June 90. 1891, are entirely un-
warranted