New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-01-10

Washington. Jan. 9-Enormous prof
it's by the First National Bank of New
York City were recounted to-day by
George ". Baker, chairman of the
board of directors Of the bank, before
the House money trust" committee.
Mr.. Baker furnished records showing
that since its organization in 1863.
with a capitalization of 100000, the
bank had made profits amounting to
more than Ss0,0O00o0.
In the four years since 1908, ".
Baker told the committee, the baut
had paid dividends OF 226 per cent. or
more than twice the total capitallza
ton. which is now S10.0)0,OOO. When
the capital was increased to that
amount in 1901. special dividend OF
SO 10000 was declared. Mr.. Baker
said. TO enable the stockholders TO
take UP the additional investment.
In order TO provide S1O,O00,0o0 in
1905 for the organization Of the First
Securities Company TO take over the
business which the bank could not
do under the law" special dividend
Of SlO.OOO.OW was declared, in addi-
ton TO the regular yearly dividends.
Samuel Untermyer counsel for the
committee. from the hgures supplled
by Mr.. Baker, calculated that since he
assumed the presidency of the First
National in 1873. the institution had
paid dividends of 1850 per cent ON It's
origina capitalization.
Mr.. Baker fatty opposed the suggcs-
ton by Mr.. Untermyer that national
banks be required TO make public their
assets in sorder that depositors and
stockholders might know the nature
of securities held by the banks lie
declared he saw no possible good that
could come Of such provision.
Favors InterIocking Directorates.
That there was no improperly IN one
man holding directorships in two or
more potentially competitive banks,
railroads or industrial corporations was
another stand taken by Mr.. Baker
Mr.. Untermyer reviewed with him
long list of railroads In which he was
a director. some of which the lawyer
held were potentially competing lines.
Mr.. Baker declared ii was rather IN
advantage TO hold such drectorships.
because differences between the ceSa.
panies can thus be readily adjusted"
The witness did not approve Of the
voting trust" form Of control of cor
porations. by which the stockholders
turn over their voting rights TO voting
trustees, but said he would not dis
approve of 1t If stockholders desired 1t.
He said the voting trustees Of the
Guaranty Trust Company@-himself. w.
II. Porter and II. p. Davison--hadnever
held a meeting. The election of direc-
,ors by the voting trust Of the Guar
anty company was purely formal" he
added.
Then the directors are self-per-
petuating body?' asked MIR. Untermyer.
Yes" replied the witness. Things
are done in New York that way with
out much consideration. II corpora
ton is going along all right and is
paving dividends there is no question
about the re- election of the directors
Mr.. Baker stated that his bank and
7. u. Morgan G. Co. had three directors
in the National Bank of Commerce.
Objects to Telling Holdings.
Would YOU object to giving the
committee the list of your individual
holdings in The various banks and trust
companies i'm New York;" asked Mr..
U'ntermyer.
Yes" replied the witness. with some
emphasis. Il think the committee has
mo moro concern with that than with
my tailor's bill
Isn't il the concern of Congress
whether one national bank controls an
other such bank?'
NO. see no reason why one bank