The evening world., 1920-06-17

crisis in the Stutz situation?
3. Did not on these appearances, repeatedly
quest them to take the matter in charge and deal with it
equitably2
a. Did not call their attention to the fact that
to prevent it2
5. Did not repeatedly request them to take meas
to stop this ''short" sellng2
g. Did they themselves not request me to lend Stutz
stock freely?
7. Did not comply with their request and lend the
stock up to the very last moment2
8. If any Of these frequent appearances failed
to satisfy their committees either my good faith or as
to my entire frankness, why then informed
and why were disciplinary then taken against
g. Were there not members on the Board of Gov
and the b-comees who, either for themselves
or their customers were then and continued to be Short
of Stutz stock?
TO- Did not actually hold the unperformed "short"
contracts Of firms whose members the Board and
the committees?
IL. Did not some of these very members sell Stltz
stock up the very last hour trading was permitted
H. Did not these same committee members ACTUALLY
participate in the official conferences with at the very
time that they represented short" INTEREST,"
49,. Did not certain of these members continue to
sell Stuff having orenoWedge of the very action which
they would recommend to the Board of Governors?
Ia. Did not these very members participate in the
Governors meeting when the suspension declared2
IS. Was not this suspension declared without
Stitutional authority?
10. Did not the Board of Governors subsequently
endeavor to put through amendment the constu-
ton granting such authority for the future?
II. Did not the Board of Governors declare that no
deliveries need be made Stuz sales made the last
day of trading2
10. Did the Board of Governors officially declare
that there would be no Stock Exchange enforcement of my
Stock Exchange contracts2
10. Do not the Exchange constitution and regulations
entte member to official enforcement of his Exchange
contracts2
20. Did they not officially declare that I should be
relegated to my rights at law private negotiation?
81. Since the Board of Governors have circulated
pamphlet the "Sutz Controversy why did they not
aTbtrate this "ControVerSy' when it was pending?
%. Cannot the Exchange compel arbitration between
members even when one party thereto is unwiing2
%. Did not the Board Of Governors officially declare
that it would take no part in the Controversy?
d. Was not this action taken to avoid enforcing my
contracts and to permit their reputation?
Is. Did not the action Of the Board of Governors
result in aiding and abettng the association of the Stutz
shorts" in their attempt to repudate their contracts?
20. What single act, ruling suggestion has there
been on the part OF the Board Of Governors
for protection, for the invioabty of these Stock
Exchange obligations, or for my gudance2
27. What suggestion made by any Stock Exchange
committee have failed to follow out, regardless of my
personal INTEREST,"
rs. Did not request the Stock Exchange to use its
machinery to settle the entire Stutz Controversy?
%. Did the Stock Exchange officially direct me
to pursue my legal rights and make such settlement as
might deem proper?
80. Did 1 not declare that I would stand upon nv
legal rights, whatever they might be?
81. Did not yield to settlement with the defaulting
borrowers of stock only upon urgent of their
committee?
3d. Were not the "short" interests ably represented
by eminent counsel at the time when they solicited and
made settlement with out of court?
80. Is there shred of evidence that I my firm
made fictitious transaction in Stutz stock?
a. Is there any evidence that single transaction
of mine in Stutz stock while its market price advancing
was not an absolutely bona fde transaction
35 Did by word or deed make any false representa-
ton to the Stutz Company in order to induce single
member his customer to sell single share of Stutz
stock?
handedy protecting my stock against persistent short
attacks?