New-York tribune., 1920-06-17

his campaign of persecution and also for anv daaa tb
nay cause py this latest unconscnae proceeding which thew
ave initiated.
II they feel shred of responsibility to anyone but them
eVes let them support their prepared judgment of expulsion
court OF justice sustans its Judgments Let them make
peclflc findings of fact the following questions:
Did appear repeatedly before their committee prior r.
A1aTrn olst both at suggestion
situation? S ~ ~ " "
g. Did not these repeatedly request them to
take the matter In charge and deal with equitably?
DID not call their attention per-
sissent Short selling despite prevent it?
Did repeatedly request them to take measures t +
this "shor" selling? " 1
Did they request me to lend sutz stock 4,,
Did not comply with their the stock up to
tho very last ~ "
g. IT on of these frequent appearances failed satisfy
ness why and whv were no dsc;n1
measures then taken against
were there not members tho Board the
subcmmttees who either or their customers e
then and continued to be "short7o of Shltz stock?
10 Did actually hold 5he unperfornoad ".horsp ++
OF 1'n whose members sat the board cnmttees7
H. Did not some Of these very suz stock IN to
the very last hour when trading perrnted7
2 Did not these committee actually participate
sented "short" INTEREST," ' Nt
1s Did members continue to seu st,t b
ing foren0wdge of the action which they recommend
to the Board of Governors?
II Did these very members participate in tbe Governors,
meeting when the suspension declared?
49, Was suspension declared without constitutions,
authority?
0 Did not th Board Of Governors subsequently ndoavor to put
through an amendment to the constitution granting authority
for the future?
IT, Did Of Governors declare that NJ d7i,
need be made suz sales day Of trading?
49, Did not the Board Of Governors officially
"oolo De no Stock Exchange enforcement Exchange
49, Do Exchange constitution and regulations entte
member to official enforcement of his Exchange
20 Did they officially declare that should be relegsd to
my rights at law or private negotiation1
81 Since the Board Of pamphlet on
the "Stutz Controversy ey not arbtrate this Cntro
versy when it was pending
Exchange compel arbitration between members
when thereto is unwilling?
23 Did of officially declare that It
would take no part IN the "Controversy"?
taken avoid enforcing nv contracts
and to permit their reputation?
of the Of Governors result in aiding
abetng in attempt
to repudiate their contracts?
&C. What single act ruling suggestion has there
of the Board my protection
for the nvabiy Of these Exchange obligations
guidance?
27 What suggestion made by Stock Exchange
regardless my personal interest
request the Stock Exchange to us s machinery
to settle the entire Stutz controversy?
29 Did not the Stock Exchange officially pursue
my legal rights and make such settlement as might deem
60 Did not declare upon my legal rights
whatever tlcv might be?
3d. Did not yield te settlement with the deaung borrowers
OF stock committee?
ably represented by eminent
counsel at the time when they solicited
49, Is there or my firm ever made
fictitious transaction n stock?
34 Is there evidence of mine in
Sttz stock while its market advancing
solutely bona transaction?
3 Did by word deed make representation
Stuz Company in order to induce customer
to sell single share of
So Is there not singlehanded]v nro
eing stock a@ans. persistent attacks?
81 Has it become Stock Exchange for man who Is