Norwich bulletin., 1917-12-21

to influence Armour to remain in Chi cago.
 The commission endeavored to show by letters from F. S. Moseley and company, brokers of Boston, that the new company was simply a means of keeping the packers satisfied by pay ing them dividends on the new com pany's stock instead of bonuses and rebates, which were outlawed by fed eral legislation.
 Tt is merely the choice of the way in which they will receive compensa- | tion," said one letter, whether in | large blocks Of bonds or cash. or in | dividends"
 Heney also endeavored to draw from l witnesses that there was no real dan
 ger of the packers leaving Chicago. | 1'hayer said he feared they would move. He admitted, however, that he knew nothing of the amount of their | investments in Chicago nor of the cost 1 of moving elsewhere.
 "How Much Will You Pay Us7" How much will you pay us?" was declared in one letter to be the pre-
 dominant question every time the packers and stockyards owners came | to a renewal of leases. At Ane time, l the letter said, renewal had cost the Junction Railways company s 000, 900 l in bonds. In 1891. when the packers
 were threatening to move to Gary, I Ind, the Junction Railways company
 gave Morris, Swift and Armour, Mir. | f1eney Sa1O, SI0U,UUU ID SIOCk, besides other inducements. to sign a fifteen year contract. Expiration in 1906 led | to a resumption of negotiations be- l tween committees representing both sides which had not been concluded l in 1910 when a test case to decide
 whether or not the terminal railway
 was subject to the interstate com
 merce commission was taken to the commerce court.
 MT. Heney said he would endeavor | to show that anticipating an adverse | decision, Prince devised the scheme of forming the new stockyards company, | to legalize the packers rebates and l hide their control of the wards. Common Stockholders Asked to Sur render.
 | Holders of the common stock of the
 Junction railways were asked to sur | render their stock to the new company and receive therefor a guarantee of g l per cent. dividends, or $200 in bonds for each $100 in stock, the bonds bear | ing per cent. interest and the return being 10 per cent. Up to that time the Junction Railways company had paid 8 per cent regularly and had more than $3000,000 surplus on a com mon stock of $6, 5O0,O0O. Asked if they considered the transfer fair,- both Hort and Thayer said they did, considering | the likelihood of loss which might be sustained if the packers should move. Ownership of Stock in Doubt The original plan, according to Mir aeney, was to give $4.4O0,O0O Of the stockyards company stock to Armour. Swift and Morris, but the ownership of this stock remains to be establish ed. Pegram said he was trustee for I 79, 80 of the 80, 900 shares of stock He never got any dividends, however. and believed that the majority of the stock 64,000 shares, was held by MT. and l Mrs. Prince. Something more than 15,o00 shares had been split up by him at Princes order and was owned 'tout west" he believed in Chicago. Tracing 1 the ownership of this block Of stock will be task for subsequent hear | ingS.
 ss,oooooo Surplus Paid Out in Divi- dends.
 Control of the Junction raifways stock was not obtained without diff1- culty. Many stockholders protested that a melon was to be cut Heney announced today that he proposed to
 paid out in dividends after the new company had gained control of the old concern which accumulated the u0ppsF. He also declared the commission was ! in possession of a letter from Prince to Armour suggesting that when they had sufficient stock. they could obtain
 che remainder by depressing the mar ket through curtailing Junction's earn ings. All of the stock was obtained except three shares, though the new corporation had to pay $50,000 for one
 block of 50 shares and $500 a share for another small lot. Earnings of the New Jersey company over the guaran- teed dividend now go to the Chicago lStockyards company.
 The Kansas City stockyards was the only other cattle market brought into the testimony today. Thayer. who is president of the Kansas City Stock
 yards company, said he owned less than 100 shares of stock but appear ed as the owner of more than 6, 200 shares, which he had endorsed to 1Tor- ris, & company.
 MT. Heney said the packers con trolIed every stockyard in the coun- try. but had concealed, the ownership by stock transfers. s<