Evening journal., 1919-03-07
CONTINUED from PAGE one.l

mouT. q Lp.s INC uNfNNh SECURITIES
Co, and z. I. dupont de Nemours Pow
der Company.
This decision brlngs 20 a close one
Of the most remarkable suits ever
brought in this country. u was filed
in the United States District Court IN
Wilmington. Del, December s. 1918,
and has been carried through all the
legal by-ways possible. Before the
trial, which opened June 2s. 1916. there
had been many moves and counter
moves In preparation for The actual
4. court appearance OF the plaintiffs and
defendants. Judge J. Whitaker Thomp-
son OF the Philadelphia District Court
was the t.ial judge
The trial took q month and 10 was
smother nine months before a decision
was handed down on april f.. 1917
This decision was against the dcfen-
Jants, but it was highly unsatisfactory
20 The plaintiffs for 10 stipulated that
the whole question at issue invoking
&he ownership OF the stock shouli be
submitted TO a vote o. the stockholders
Of the dupont Company
This decision was followed by an Or
der from Judge Thompson. on August
II, directing that stockholders meet
lag be Held and outlining a method of
procedure. This rec said buntly
that the stockholde.s had q perfect
light to take over the amount Of money
involved IL they so desired.
This meeting was held on October 80.
3D. 9i1. under the supervision of former
Judge Daniel o. Hastings. appointed By
he court as special master. The YER
iict was Overwhelmingly in favor OF
pierre :. duPon. and his associales.
whose ownership Of the stock in ques-
ton was conf med by a vast major
iiy. not only Of the stock. but OF the
individual stockholders
This vote was contested by the plain
tins, who appealed to the court % over
rule Its own decision. on the ground
that the stockholders were Influenced
by the d-fendlnts. This question was
fought out at several hearings before
Judge Thompson but he made a nnal
decision on March 70. 1918. confirming
the right Of Pierre s. dupont and his
associates 20 their holdings.
An appeal was taken Immediately by
the plaintiffs carrying the case % the
Circuit Court where argument was had
early last October
judges Burlington and Mcpherson Of
the Philadelphia Circuit Court and
Judge Thomas G. Haigh,. OF the New
Jersey District Court heard the argu-
ments. judge Haisht took The place OF
Judge Wooliey, who, because OF his
ciose connection with al parties OF the
suit, lid not care TO act
Since this argument. Judce MePher-
son has died but he evidently agreed
with the other judges and helped write
he opinion, because. as handed down
Yesterday, 10 bears his name With that
of the other two judges
The interest in this suit has been
great from the beginning. not only be-
cause Of the yastness OF the sum involV-
I'd but becaJse OF The motives back OF
%. u has been openly charged from
The beginning that Alfred /. dupont and
not the plaintiff OF record. Philip T..
dupont, was the real pl0intim. Al
red /. duPonts interest in the case
was declared by his counsel 10 be that
% protecting the interests OF small
stockholders. II was shown. however
Turing the trial that while decision in
his favor would have increased the
falue Of all stock. it would have added
% his own holdings about 100000.
Tie testimony at various stages
showed that there had been friction
for some time and that The president
n the company, Pierre :. dupont. had
'Ound 10 necessary 20 admonish several
Of the plaintiffs that they mus. either
act in harmony with the company or
reiinquish their official positions. lie
pointed out that with the vast amount
3f war work on hand, this failure TO
cooperate was jeoplrdizing the success
OF the company which had in hand con-
tracts with the Allies Of such magni-
tud3 that almost superhuman efforts
vera necessary 20 fulnll them.
Alfred !. dupont was first dismissed
rom his position as q yicc-president
and later refused reelection as o di-
rector, along with Francis I. dupont.
The altitude Of the stockholders to-
ward the officials Of the company, who
were making such a wonderful success
0f their war work. was shown by fhe
vote at The stockholders meeting held.
under the supervision OF the court
when cut Of 473,i32 shares entitled 10
vote only 1900, exclusive Of that held
by the defendants and a few holdings
about which there was a legal qles-
ton, were not cast for the defendants.
This showed that out OF the holdings
of 2i3.375 shares held by the disipte--
ested stockholders, 20003i. or IS per
cent, voted for the defendants. An analv-
sis OF the vote showed also that OF the
stockholders, holding less than 20
shares each as champion Of whom Al
fred !. dupont was appearing. 1911 ont
OF a total Of tii4 refused to follow
his lead.
The frst feature Of the case taken up
by the higher court was the question
Of whether or not Pierre dupont and
his associates used the credit OF the
company in financing the si4OOl000
deal for the purchase OF 63.3iI shares
OF common stock and il599 shares Of
preferred stock OF Z. I. dupont de Ne
mours Powder Company from T. Cole
n an dupont. The latter had offered 20
II TO the comnanv for resale to in
portant employees, 10000 shares OF his
stock so that these employees might be-
rom" more deeply interested In the
welfare Of The company. which WIS
insi then entering on its great work OF
supplying munitions for the Allied
armies in Europe.
TA'S offer had been cons 'dered ny
he finance committee OF which Aired
dupont was a member. and had been
e'used on the ground OF the price. si6n
I share. was too S,gh 90.
After various NEGOTIATIONS. Coleman
iuPont withdrew MS offer. and hA qn1
Pierre entered INTO negotiations where
by Coleman sold his entire hold ngs %
Pierre and a number OF his assocliiss.
Among the contanaons made by Al
fred I. was that the purchasers could