New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-10-28
Stockholders, Beaten OH
Motion to Sue, Force
Two-Day Session.
WASTE OF MONEY,
STOREY DECLARES
LAWYERS for Litigants Indicate
Intent to File More
Suits.
from s.ar Corrsponaea; O: The tribunal

have been routine HSSNIAS u NS"
Haven stockholders, with all hands
bomeward bound not later than the
l.ls. was changed into a two-day ses-
.;on this afternoon by the demand Of
little group Of Bostonians that the
company finance suits to compel former
directors to repay large sums alleged
.o have been lost by their mslfeasance.
The motion was lost, but by insisting
On a stock vote the minority succeeded
in forcing q night session. When 1t
h.,sne clear that the tellers would be
on. until morning, adjournment was
had until tomorrow.
Asa P. French, former United States
District Attorney in Boston, and Hugh
OGDEN. Of the law firm which months
sgo fled q suit to recover something
Ike $500. 100000 from directors living
and dead, only 10 fail, led the demand
for aid in recovering these moneys al
legged TO have been unlawfully taken
from the treasury. The vote was over
whelmingly against them, but they
asked for a stock vote. This was al
lowed. and though there is no doubt
that the refusal Of the management
has been sustained by something ike
100000 votes 20 10000 the result can
no, be formally announced until TO-
MORROW.
their fight for fhe bringing OF restltu-
teruoon, despite the statements OF
President Hadley O. Yale, Chairman
Elliott and Moorheld Storey, special
counsel. that restitution suits would be
a waste Of the stockholders money, as,
except in the Billiard case. now pend
ing. there was no possible chance for
the company 10 win.
Company Has No Case.
The statement Of Mr.. Storey, who be-
came special counsel to arrange the
dissolution % the company or the rec
ommendatioa OF the then Attorney
General, Mr. McReynolds, was by far
the most impor;snt declaration that
has yet been made in connection with
the efforts 10 compel restitution. Mr.
Storey fatty declared that the company
had nc case and that TO prosecute these
suits would simply be a waste Of the
stockholders money. Summed up
briefly, the reasons given by Mr.. Storey.
which are Of far-reaching Importance,
are as follows:
The Whipple bill was brought before
the Massachusetts, Supreme Court with
practically no other basis than the In
tersta.e Commerce Commission report
on the New Haven, which made no
charge that any directors had made a
cent ou: OF the money alleged 20 have
been wasted by the New Haven.
That the former directors Of the New
Haven were also stockholders, and they
suffered just as much as the other
stockholders.
That everything done in the Mellen
regime was justified by some law. either
Of long standing or passed for the pur-
pose.
That the greater part Of the transac-
tons criticised happened before the
Sherman law Of 1890 or shortly after
and before the Supreme Court decision
Of 1897 that the Sherman law applied
to railroads. An equity suit was started
By the Department Of Justice, but was
dismissed.
Stockholders Ratified Acts.
That practically all the acts were
rstihed By both stockholders and di-
reetors, including some Of the holders
represented by Mr. French and his
sssocister
That the Boston & Maine acquisition
specihealiy referred 70 in the bill was
up for public consideration for three
years, was validated through the Bos-
ton Holding Company and was not. in
the opinion Of Richard Olney and other
eminent lawyers, a competitor Of the
New Haven, except trivially, but was
natural complement 70 the New Haven
That the New Haven accepted the
dissolution suit 70 avoid bankruptcy be-
cause Of It's floating debt Of SGT 100000
That the present New Haven man
sgement II not opposed 20 restitution
suits II brought by any stockholder on
hs own account, bat u would oppose
emphatically the prosecution OF any
,plt at the expense of the New Haven
treasury.
Hardly had the chairman finished his
opening speech than Mr.. French began
ms hght by challenging the right OF
me management 70 solicit. as ne
termed II, proxies. From then on
through the whole afternoon II was one
hested argument, occasionally taken ul
~ q stakeholder who had a crouch OF
NJ. own that he wanted 20 get rid Of:
AY. French finally offered resolu-
uon providing that the directors be in.
s'yrcted 20 bring suits for restitution
sgainst former directors. After thi,
hsd been disposed Of Hugh W. Ogden
n associate Of Mr. French. put In this
ttolution:
=, That the officers and directors oi
ne company herewith be instructed "a
rihdraw their opposition 20 the pro-
,.ssaings Of Ralph II. Bartlett and other
,u,9stees against the New York, New
Hsysn 4 Hartford Railroad Company
.no others, nov pending in the Su-
pfene Judicial Court 81 Massachusetts
.e .ne 70 join with and assist the plain
I1s and interyenors In enforcing the
"Sh's Of action Of sasd bill"
Storey and Ogden Clash
nj lIhsss are the proceedings in which
nipple, Gears and Ogden are inter
sstsd, and Dir. Storey at once began "a
tst spike in the resolution by assert
~ mat u wss simply an effort 70 get
"sw Haven treasury % pay for the
proceedings and that the company
rrosio not stand for II. lie and Nr
vf2sh tad long verbal battle, during
.h,eh Af. Storey gave what he believed
Ds conclusive reasons that any such
woestdings would be waste " the
..pfsno'dsrs money. The resolution
". Tsls1sted % the scrap heap.
Ic.day's meeting Of the New Haven
sWebolders wss by far the most ex.
nuny and intsresting that has been
nsia IN years. Chairman Elliott opened
-shs proceedings with q statement that
csssisasd % Dsss 4 column .