The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-04-10
TIE REVOLT OF MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS
(By Frederic Drew Bond. in Moody's
 Magazine.)

(By Frederic Drew Bond. in adoody's:
 Magazine.) aI The last few months have seen a sudden outburst of determined activ- tty on the part Of minority stockhoId- CTS in nearly a dozen very large cor porations against controlling direc- tories Of wealthy interests. But for the currency, tariff and Income laws the movement would almost certain ly have attracted more public atten- ton. dts significance is already pret- ty we'll appreciated in certain parts Of Wall Street.
 Outside of sporadic efforts in the past and some successful examples in. small corporations the first of the re- cent series of bold defences by mi norities to an invasion of what seem ed their. rights goes back to the spring of 1912 when the New Y ork Pu bIics Service Commission. of the 2d District intervened in the attempted exchange of the Rutland Railroad to the New York. New Haven & Hart ford for. the Ontario & Western to be given to the New York Central The lcontentlon of the Ontaria & Western
 minority stockholders protesting against the acquisition of the road by 1 the New ' ork Central was successful; that of the Rutland stockholders pro 1 testing against the acquisition oftheir 1OAd fDY the N0W I O1A, @4N0W= '11dfCn
 & Hartford was not, but in the latter case minority rights were by no means so clearly invaded. The inci- dent Is mentioned as having attract ed some attention and as showing what nafnorfties can do when led by men understanding financial deals The attorney for the Rutland minor | fty stockholders was MT. Samuel Un- termyeE
 That the series of events about to be shortly narrated should have oc- cured in the last year and not pre- 1 viously may probably be largely at lItributed to the fact that the Pujo
 csomnittee,s activities and MT. Will sons election showed that it was not impossible, after all. to compel men l hitherto utterly irresponsible sto give an account of their stewardship. American ninorittes in great corpo- 1 rati6ns are very often majorities as far as the number of stockholders is I concerned. but they own or control l less stock than is in the power of those at the head of the corporation. Moreover, the minority holders, igno- l rant of one another's identity and very I ifrequently mostly unable to get a clear conception of what is happening in 1 their company are simply helpless.
 Corporation misInana cement usual Fl Iy means either reckless extrayagance 1 or mistakes in conduct of the ,.busi- I ness or improper sales or SOOdS ana property to the corporation by it's own directors or other influential interests or attempts to oust certain classes of Il security holders. The last instance if generally involves receivership and
 a freeze-os1t of some groups by
 means of an assessment imposed by
 the dominant interests. At times however, credit is extended to the
 corporation, and then withdrawn al
 critical time, and in this way il may happen that total outsiders gain II possession by means of bankruptcs T or equity proeeedings Of the com q ysssWh hen this happens some grea1 ss New York banking Institution and it's q brokerage friends is often back of the I scheme.
 InT reviewing the recent efforts o1
 stockholders to combat some of the above named conditions, the mosi
 striking example, that of the stock ! holders committee in the New Ha- tyen road, ,fneed not be. adverted to. IT lseffect this committee was little bet fster than a dummy setdup with the in tention of adversely criticizing all o1 ] Mr.. MelIen's acts instead of letting 1 public opinion put the blame square Il Iy where it belonged
 But the mention of a stockholders
 coInmfttee leads at once to the nex
 point: namely. that a protective body Of this sort must be formed by the
 stockholders in a really efficient man lsner. And, furthermore, a protective Econnmittee to be of use must, in the