The sun., 1916-08-31

cess Of 81, 800. 900 In the purchase Of
newspapers and reimbursements OF
writer's. so-called newspaper publicity
mon and payments to magazines and PEE
radicals for articles %purporting to be
news. n for advertising and semi-ad-
vertising matter and other forms Of pub
lication.
ship Deals Costiy.
The newspapers purchased with tho
money diverted from the roads Golfers.
according to the complaint. were to he
conducted under the gulse Of being in
dependent public organs OF news. when
a. n matter of fact they had been pur-
chased for the purpose OF d%istracting tho
attention Of the public and OF the stock
holders OF the defendant company and
deceivlng them"
The largest sum mentioned in the COM
plant Is the sl33. 900. 900 alleged to have
been used by the defendants In gaining
control OF steamship companies. rail-
roads and trolley systems.
Through the secret operation OF So
called fighting steamers the New Haven.
It Is alleged. lost more than $4,000, 600.
The lighting steamers" were employed
by tho New Haveu to drive competing
steamship companies out OF business.
the complaint asserts. but in order to
make them effective the rates charged
for passengers and freight had to he less
thai the actual cost Of transportation.
As another means Of perfecting n mo-
nopoly. the complaint says. the defend
ants paid out to lawyers and l%itigants
100000 to bring harassing suits In the
courts Of this state and New England
against competing companies for the
wicked and unlawful purpose" OF driv-
ing the latter out OF business.
The commissions aggrcgating s.
600, 900, paid TO banking houses In this
city ard elsewhere. In which soine OF the
defendants were partners or In which
they were financially interested. were,
according to the complaint. grossly In
excess OF any fair or reasonable commits
sions for any services performed by said
banking houses"
In another part the complaint charges
that the securities OF the New Haven
were barred as investments for savings
banks In Massachusetts by reason OF the
fact that the defendants had unlawfully
increased the compaGy's stock and bond
issues in a manner contrary to the laws
Of Massachusetts. This. II Is alleged.
caused a loss OF $40. 900. 900 to the de-
PENDANT company.
Drop In stock Recalled.
The plaintiffs also seek to make the
defendants responsible for the loss TO the
stockholders resulting from the depre-
citation In the alu Of tho stock, which
dropped from S:75 a share to $40 be-
tween 1890 and 1914. Through their
acts. the complaint asserts. the conspira-
tors or defendants. transformed what had
been a successful company earning large
profits and able to pay dividends to It's
stockholders, sometimes amounting to
10 per cent. to an impoverished corpora
ton which In 1914 operated It's business
at II loss and was nah even to make
repairs to It's track and rolling stock.
Tn complaint deals al length with the
so-called New Haven-Grand Trunk traffic
Agreement. through which the New
Haven induced the Canadian road to dis
continue the construction Of the Southern
New England Railway. which invaded
tho New Haven's territory. In return,
the complaint says. the New Haven had
to make certain concessions 10 the Grand
Trunk which cost the company subs,ai-
ia. sums os money. x IS alleged ;ha:
$1,000. 900 was also spent to conceal this
agreement and to protect Charles 5.
Mellen against any harm that might re-
sui, from his subsequent indictment for
conspiracy to violate the Sherman law.
Other losses amounting TO $4,000, 900
are said to have been suffered by the
company through the Acts OF the defend
ants in liking rates. apportion!ng terri
tory and other measures necessary to the
elimination OF competition.
mother $4,000. IL Is charged. was
paid TO lawyers. expert accountants.
clerks. bookkeepers. detectives and
divers other persons for the purpose OF
defeating the object OF the investigation
which the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion was conducting into the AFFAIRS o;
the company in 1909. and to prevent a
disclosure of the f5cts now complained
OF by the stockholders.
In the defence of the company during
TIE investigation conducted By the Inter
state Commerce Commission in 1914 and
In the dissolution suit fled against the
company by the Government the New
Haven was required to pay out 5000, 900
more to lawyers, expert accountants and
other persons.