The Washington herald., 1913-01-29
JUDGE GOULD
AGAIN ON Stand
District Jurist Is Cross-ex-
: amined in Insurance
Probe.
SERMON in DIALECT
Testimony Shows He Was Not in Com
plete Accord with Some of the
Methods Used.
SERMON in DIALECT

Justice Ashley NJ. Gould, of the Dis
trict Supreme Court, was on the. witness
stand for several hours at the insurance
investigation yesterday. Judge Gould,
besides going through an interesting
cross-examination at the hands of Judge
Prouty, received an amusing sermon in
dialect from Representative Berger, who,
in effect, sought to administer a gentle
verbal chastSement because the judge
ventured into commercial fields. Judge
Gould took Mr.. Berger's remarks in
good part.
Judge Prouty drew from the witness
several admissions. which tended TO
show that the local jurist is not in COM
plete sympathy with some of the bust
ness methods of Tuttle, Wightman &
Dudley, Inc, and the Commercial Fire
Insurance Company.
Questioned as to his understanding as
to the object OF passing the resolution
raising the price of Commercial stock
and setting forth the great prosperity of
the company, when as matter OF fact,
an underwriting loss of many thousands
of dollars had been sustained in the pre-
ceeding ten months, Judge Gould finally
admitted that IL he had it to do over
again ne would insist that the resolution
set forth that the company based its
claims on a recent real estate transac-
tion.
Judge Prouty also questioned him as to
the Incorporation of Tuttle. Wightman
& Dudley, which, as a partnership. had
made contracts with the Commercial
= which involved some material financial
responsibility. AS the capital stock
under the incorporation was only s., 000,
Judge Prouty wanted to know IL the
Commercial had fully protected itself in
permitting the incorporation. Judge
Gould admitted that they had not. and
said that il was the first time the point
had been called 10 his attention.
The only purpose l have in asking
rhis question" explained Judge Prouty,
lis to see whether you directors are
looking after Vie business of the COM
pany."
Il think the point is well made" said
Judge Gould. There ought to be behind
that contract the personal ability that
existed when the other contract was
made with the individuals"
An interesting colloquy resulted from
efforts by Judge Prouty to get Judge
Goulds opinion as to the wisdom Of
interlocking directorates between insur
ance companies and underwriting firms.
Mr.. Prouty-Do you think it is a safe
way for men that are interested in the
results of a contract being the control
ling force of the contract out of which
it was made?
Judge Gould-I do not. 1t does not ap-
ply here because the directorate of Tut
lie, Wightman & Dudley were never able
TO control the directorates of the Com
Inercial. For instance they had only at
the outside five members, and there were
fifteen members of the Commercial, ten
Of whom were utterly disconnected with
futile, Wightman & Dudley. The alb
straCt proposition is absolutely correct.
There ought not 10 he a position where
the directors can control the respectiveI
companies.
Would Depend on Personnel.
Mr. Prouty-Would you not go one step
further than that and say it ought not
TO he composed Of men that are the
controlling forces and factor, although
they are not the majority?
Judge Gould-Assuming they are the
controlling force and factor, 1 should say
YOU are still right
Mr.. Prouty-Take, for instance, a board
of directors entirely selected by Mr..
futile, we have shown in the. record;
do you think it is safe to allow that kind
Of board of directors to deal with him
in the contamination of a contract?
Judge Gould-lt would depend on the
personnel of those directors.
Mr.. Prouty-No persons short of angels
could measure up to that duty
Judge GouId-l think it would not take
angels at all for man TO do his fidu-
ciary duty according to law. think the
rank and file OF honest men do that.
Mr.. Prouty-Do you think it is safe in
the affairs of men 10 allow the agents of
a man to make a contract with him him
self?
Judge GOuld-NO. OF course, YOU are
asking me as lawyer. and as a lawyer
say no. The law looks with disfavor
upon it