The Arizona copper camp., 1919-05-24


against the practices of Sheppard &
Co., in refusing to make delivery Of
stock bought from them under con-
tract; in persistently ignoring COM
munications from stockholders, and in
not returning money promptly, If sub
scriptions should have been rejected.
We believe that they were not justi-
fed and cannot be justified in making
a statement that the stock subscrip-
tions were not subject to delivery of
certificates, as they contracted to
make deliveries.
Your prompt action in this matter
will be gratefully appreciated and we
trust that you will see your way clear
to bring these offenders to justice.
Very truly yours.
J. G. HEATING.
r. s. STRACHAN.
A. E. SCHIFFERMAN.
That the committee representing
the stockholders feels it not only has
just cause for action against the COM
pany, but against the representative,
Elmer Nelson, as well, is shown in the
following wire sent to the Arizona
Corporation Commission:
May 19, 1919.
Arizona Corporation Commission,
Phoenix, Arizona:
Kindly advise if salesman hand
ling stock for foreign corporation
or joint stock association requires per.
sonal permit from your commission in
order to sell stock. Is it illegal to sell
stock without such permit? If so,
what action can be taken, and what
penalties are allowed by law? Please
wire reply.
ARIZONA COPPER CAMP.
This was answered by the Corpora
tion Commission as follows:
No. 81, I'M LIS So Blue. Phoenix, Ariz.,
4:56 P. NJ, May 19, 1919.
Ariz. Copper Camp, Ray, Ariz:
Your telegram reference foreign
corporation or joint stock association.
1t is necessary for such companies to
have permit before stock in same is
offered for SALE II this is being done
by any company without permit, same
should be called to the attention of
the county attorney and, If necessary,
commission will send representative
to assist in prosecution
ARIZ. CORPORATION COMM.
Communication was established
with Phoenix Tuesday morning, in or
der to find out If Nelson was legally
entitled to represent Sheppard & Co.
While it is necessary for a so-called
'joint stock association" to obtain a
permit before it can proceed with the
sale of stock, 1t is also necessary for
salesman representing such a CON-
pany to be appointed, by authority Of
the Arizona Corporation Commission,
to sell the stock. Nelson had no such
appointment This places him in the
light of illegally selling stock.
There are friends here, however,
who believe that Nelson acted in per-
fectly good faith in the matter. He
states that Sheppard & Co. informed
him that his permit to sell stock
would be taken care of by them. This
does not remove his liability, but fur
ther strengthens the case against
Sheppard & Co.
That there is niger in the wood
pile is easily to be seen: Sheppard &
Co. wait until the property of the
Burk Bethel Oil company has in
creased in value, without giving the
stockholders an opportunity to take a
profit in their stock; they refuse to
communicate with their agent refuse
to acknowledge communications from
| subscribers, and generally act as
though they are satisfied that they
have the right to proceed without Civ
ing satisfaction.
That such conditions should exist in
this state is incomprehensible. Repu.
table brokers, who are heavily bond
ed, licensed and amenable to the laws
are not protected against crooked
schemes that won't hold water in the
courts. 1t seems an outrage that the
individual stockholder is not protect
| ed-that he cannot have recourse
without waging an expensive suit
against company that can afford to
employ better legal talent. Manifest
ly, there is something wrong with q
law that will permit such practices.
This Burk Bethel hoax is the first
of its kind perpetrated on the Ray
public. Thousands and thousands o.
dollars have been invested by Ray
ties in various oil stocks. Some Of
them have given their holders profit