New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-07-22
new HAVEN DEFIANT
TO FIGHT U. S. SUIT
Executive Committee In
dignant at McReynOldS's
Terms for Dissolution.
WON'T OBEY FIAT
OF STATE LAW
Breaking Up of System by
Fisher-Ellis Bill Would Mean
S1O,000.00O Loss, It's Said.

S1O,000.000 Loss, It's Said.
Moorfeld Storey. Of Boston. was yes
lerday instructed by the executive
committee Of the New Haven Railroad
10 prepare TO fight any suit the gov
eminent may bring against the COM
pany under the Sherman antitrust act.
! hat was the answer of the committee
TO the threat from Washington 70 file
suit AT once.
The committee was called to receive
the report OF President Hustis. DR..
Arthur Twining Hadley and r. De Witt
Cuyler. Of the directorate. and Mr.
Storey. who. at the request Of Pre- j.
dent Wilson. aS exclusively toretold IN
The Tribune. went 20 WASHINGTON Mon
day 70 confer with Attorney General
McRevnolds in an effort to find way
out Of suit 70 dissolve the company.
This committee reported that the
conference was absolutely devoid Of
results. and recommended that the
company stand on its declarations. re-
pcatedlv made. 10 welcome suit rather
than yield to the terms laid down by
The Massachusetts Legislature. The re-
port was accepted b. the members
present. Mr.. Hustis. William skinner,
A. l.. Hemingway. A. T. Hadlcy, r. De
Witt Cuylcr Charles f. Brocker and
ex-senator Winthrop Murray Crane. Of
Massachusetts. William Rockefeller
and Chairman Elliott were the only
absenteeS.
Won't Accept Federal Terms.
According TO the committee. the only
way out that Mr.. McRcvnolds had to
offer was for the New Haven 70 agree
70 the terms of the Fisher-Ellis act
and trust TO the Mas sachusetts Legs
lature amending the terms. AT its ses-
sion nest January. Meantime the gov
eminent was willing 70 give the com
pany reasonable time in which 20
find purchaser. The answer TO this
was that it would be impossible to sell
to advantage until the directors knew
exactly what they had 10 sell.
Mr.. McReynolds explained that the
administration did not wish 10 EN-
barrass anybody BY bringing a suit
that might be avoided To this the
answer was made that the committee
did not wish to embarrass Mr. Nc
Reynolds or anybody else. but that il
did not purpose TO sacrifice the rights
Of its stockholders. who have already
lost millions. 10 relieve Mr.. NcReyn-
olds or anybody else OF embarrass-
ment. The directors. they said had n
duty 20 perform, and proposed 10 per
form II
Mr. Storey. however. warned Mr.. Nc
Reynolds that he could not hope TO
win any suit that he might bring un-
der the Sherman act 20 compel the
New Haven to give up the Boston a
Maine. The law, said the Boston at
torney, was solidly against the con-
tentio1 of the government To avoid
litigation. the company had agreed TO
dispose or the Boston & Maine. but il
would bot 90 any further. Mr.. Storey
also pointed out the injustice VI the
Fisher-Ellis bill, and told the Attorney
Genera that not only had the prom Sc
Of Massachusetts officials been dis
hOnOred. but that any suit brought
with the intention Of forcing the New
Haven 20 dispose Of it's property IN
der the terms OF that law was bound
70 fail, as taking property without due
process Of law.
To do 80 would cause = loss Of
millions Of dollars. perhaps $4,000
600. he SAID. The minority stockhold-
crs of the Boston & Maine would also
suffer, he said. i was further pointed
out that public opinion in New Eng
land was against the breaking up Of
the New Haven Boston & Maine svs-
TEN.
Mr.. McRcynolds. however. held to
his declaration that the Boston &
Maine must be sold He sustained the
Massachusetts, contention that the
state had the right 10 say what should
be done with Boston & Maine stock.
as IT reserved that right 10 itself when
it chartered the Boston Railroad Hold
ing Company. and that the string"
az the perpetual option the state now
insists upon being stamped upon all
certificates Of Boston 4 Maine-Ncw
Haven stock - termed. meant nothing
more than rcasscrtion Of that right.
The answer 20 this was that con-
ccsslOn was made part OF a contract
by which the Now Haven was 20 ac-
quirc control Of tho Boston & Maine.
With the idea Of holding il forever.
and ihdt the clause because Of the
pcrmancncy OF the purchase really
was not Of Importance ~ the time.
Nov, however. the government was
contcnding that the contract was il
legal. II that IS the case. Mr.. Story
argued. neither Massachusetts nor
the Department Of Justice could
argue successfully that the clause was
binding
Either the contract is valid or t
10 invalid" he said in substance. ar
il is valid you cannot attack II. VIC
cannot be forced TO DISPOSE OF our
stock. IT 1t l. invalid. 10 clause in
il is valid or binding. and neither YOU
nor the state Of Massachusetts has
the right TO say We shall dispose OF
our stock"
Didn't Plead for Mercy.
The members of the committee
were more indignant over the reports
tna1 cmanatcd from Washington a.
TO wat happened AT the conference
than over the results for they ex-
pcctcd none when they went TO the
capital, going as a matter Of courtesy
20 the Chief Executive. These re
ports had it that the committee were
willing 20 have the New Haven dis
gorge everything II might own if the
directors were given immunity from
prosecution undor the sherman act.
DR.. tladlcy, who Is president OF
Yale University. vas particularly in
dignaut that he should have been
represented ~ ,hc attitude Of COM