Evening journal., 1916-07-05
A. |. DUPONT ENDS
3 Days TESTIMONY
Continued from First Page.

Continued from First Page.
company for the T. Coleman dupont
stock. at 5000 a share. and said he
did this because he realized It would
be the lesser Of two evils, believing
that the company would eventually
have to pay for the stock anyway. in
dividends.
When Court reconvened Monday
afternoon Alfred l. dupont was cues.
toned as to the contents Of the
original interviewer filed in this
suit, which he signed. In this inter-
vener there was an intimation that p
5. DUPONT knew before the meeting as
TO how the finance committee would
stand on the proposition to buy the
stock of the DUPONT Securities Com
pany, at 5000 a share. AT this point
Mr.. Graham started a question, say
Ing, You make the nasty charge
against Pierre S. dupont" At this
point Mr.. Glasgow objected to Mr..
Graham putting the question in that
way The court sustained the objec-
ton and Mr.. Graham recalled the
word nasty"
CrOss-eXamination OF the witness as
to what took place at the board OF
directors meeting, when the question
Of purchasing of the T. c. DUPONT
stock from the dupont Securities
Company was being considered, was
long drawn out. Mr.. Graham. Of coun-
sci for the defendants, read at some
length from typewriter sheets, pur-
porting TO be stenOgraphic notes Of the
board meeting, what the witness had
to say at the meeting relative to the
proposition to buy this stock from the
Securities company at 5000 a share.
Some Of these statements, the witness
said, expressed his views. but he had
no actual knowledge that they we're
his words, and other statements he
could not recall anything about.
The upshot Of all this cross-ex-
I animation was that the witness ad-
mitted that at the meeting of the
board, on March 6. 1915. he advocated
the purchasing of the stock from the
dupont Securities Company, at 5000,
as the lesser Of two evils. He con-
tended that the individuals who had
purchased such a large block Of stock
would not be able to pay for 1t with
out the help Of the company and that
/ eventually the company would have to
pay for It in dividends anyway.
Mr.. DUPONT denied that he ever sent
Mr.. Dixon to see L. L. Dunham
relative to buying or acquiring in
some way the stock or some portion
Of the stock Of T. Coleman dupont.
When questioned about Atlas Pow
I 4 IL Il 81
Hercules Powder Company stock be-
ing held. the witness testified that the
DUPONT company could not legally
hold the stock Of the above two COM
panies in its treasury. Mr., Graham
asked the witness il he did not vote
to distribute the Atlas and Hercules
stock among the stockholders Of the
DUPONT company? The witness re-
piled:
Il had to-"
"who compelled you?" asked Mr.
Graham.
"The court" replied Mr. dupont
He stated that the decree Of the court
IN the dissolution set out that the
stock of those companies could moi
be held by the powder company.
The witness identified a proxy, sent
by him to be used by p. S. DUPONT
Alexis I. DUPONT and John ]. Raskot
In voting his stock at the annual meet
ing Of the stockholders OF the powder
company on March Is. 1915 He
stat ID in answer to cross-examinatiOn
by Mr.. Graham that he did not know
until afterwards that this proxy was
for use in ratifying acts of the direct
ors and officers of the company. He
was questioned as to his interest in
other corporations and the general
practice and power of proxies. He
said as far as he could remember he
was a director in but two other cor
porations
The witness identified a telegram
and also a letter sent out to stock
holders of the powder company prev
ious to the last annual meeting OF
the stockholders, and signed by him
self Philip f. DUPONT and Francis
/. dupont. At this point the cross
examination closed.
MIR. Glasgow, before starting his re-
direct examination Of the witness
stated that he would call on the de-
p fense for the production Of the pur.
D ported stenographic transcript as II
4 exists of the board OF directors meet
q ing. which Mr.. Graham had cross-ex-
I amined the witness from
3 Mr.. Graham said the rule was that
if they produced this transcript II
Y must go in evidence Mr.. Glasgow
n would not agree to It going in evi.
70 dence. The court ruled that IL mus
y 90 in evidence if produced. The pro.
i duction of the transcript was moi
insisted on.
s. In redirect examination Mr.. DUPONT
d said he advocated at the finance com
o mittee meeting. as referred to, thai
n accounts be opened in three loca
?. banks specified because the casl
3 balance of the company was beyond
the working requirements He sug
j. gested opening OF an account with
l. New York trust company, he said, {,
e get wider distribution Of the com
d pany's funds among more banks.
lie Mr.. Glasgow statedeto the witness
Y that II had been suggested by Mr.
,r Graham in his cross-examination tha
ID the witness desired or possibly hai
tried to purchase T. c. dupont
stock and asked him II that was true
The witness said It was not true an,
that he had made no effort to secur
the stock.
r This concluded the examination q
Mr.. DUPONT. who had been on tn
stand the entire three days that tn
suit has been going on.