Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1917-04-19
CEICER-JONES IS
GIVEN LICENSE
Company Which Has Built In
duStries In Ohio.
STATE INDICATES CANTON CO.

OF Its Business Dealing Has Been
Proven In an Open Hearing-Com.
pany Must Make Few Changes to
Conform to New Law.
Columbus, April 16-Gov. Cox and
State Banking Supt. Berg Monday
granted the Geiger-Jones Co. of
Canton license under the state "blue
sky" law.
Beginning May 1, the company will
resume the sale of industrial secur-
tiles in Ohio.
The meat of Cox's and Berg's rul-
ing is:
The solvency, good business repute,
legitimacy and legality of the Geiger-
Jones Co. have been proved beyond
the shadow of doubt.
Sixteen thousand Ohio workmen are
assured that the means of earning
their livelihood will not be disturbed.
An investment of more than $780,,
100000, netting the 11,000 Geiger-
Jones clients involved an annual in
come of between $9,500,000 and
S10,O0O,OO0, will not be imperiled.
Bankers and merchants will con-
tinue handling nearly $16,000,00O, the
total which Geiger-Jones payrolls ap-
proXimate each year.
Cox's and Berg's decision is all the
more sweeping and conclusive vic
tory for the Geiger-Jones Co. when
viewed in the light that no financial
institution in the United States has
ever been subjected to such pitiless
and searching investigation.
Criticism on three poir'G accom-
panied it: Q) the payl un-
earned dividends on stoc (2) the
appreciation of plant accounts to
build up surpluses; (3) mis-state-
ments in literature. These observa-
tions, however, apply to practically
every like institution in the state.
Considering testimony drawn out
at the hearing, it seems apparent that
their conclusion is an appreciation of
the honest and constructive policy
that has married the entire career of
the Geiger-Jones Co. 1t seems to
commend the principle of the COM
pany always to safeguard it's clients
and never to run away when an in
stitution seems to totter financially.
Cox-Berg Stand Broad
In view of what developed at the
hearings, which continued from Feb.
% to April a, Cox and Berg evidently
differentiated between the minor mis-
takes and inadvertence that crept into
GeigerJones transactions, and the
strict adherence to fundamental prin-
ciples that has made the Canton con-
cern stand unique among securities
houses in the way it has protected
its stockholders.
Evidently Cox and Berg viewed the
situation presented by the Geiger-
Jones Co. through broad, business ex-
perience. They realized that in such
vast business as the company trans
acts, naturally some errors would
creep in. They considered the proud
boast of the Geiger-Jones Co., sub
stantiated by absolute proof, that no
one of their 1000 clients has ever
lost dollar-a claim that probably
no other investment house in Ohio
can make.
Evidence adduced at the hearings
which continued from time to time
before Cox, Berg and McGhee, from
Feb. % to April a, failed to bring
to light one single instance of where
client of the Geiger-Jones Co., or
the purchaser of one share of stock
in industries it helped finance, had
complained.
Not one investor ever lost dollar
of principal, was the statement made
by H. M. Geiger, president of the
company, and it stood like Gibraltar
against all assaults. Every institu.
tion whose securities he sold in the
open market is going concern today
and is earning money, was Geiger's
warranted boast.
Back on the sidelines were COM
peting securities companies or their
attorneys or corporations in compe-
tition with the Geiger-Jones indus
tries. They, and not disgruntled
clients, precipitated the attacks on
the Geiger-Jones Co. and the result.
ant Investigations.
How Clients Were Protected.
Ample proof was supplied by the
Geiger-Jones Co. that never had it
advanced funds for paying unearned
dividends without faithfully appris.
ing stockholders of the true facts
In at least one instance it was shown
that the Geiger-Jones Co. had guar
anteed returns on the stock of a Ger.
tain company for period of two
years.
Of very material aid to the Geiger-
Jones Co., in enlarging ON it's right
10 "blue sky" law license, was H.
M. Geiger's explanation of how il
rafeguarded the interests of its
clients.
Where most security companies
ere content to conclude their re-
'onsibility with the sale of stock,
Geiger-Jones Co. maintained
,seless vigil on companies II un.