The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1921-02-10
DIRECTORS OLA. S.&R.
REPLY TO KARL EILERS
MAKE STRONG DEFENSE OF THE
MANAoEMENT-STocK HELD
BY SIMON eUeGENHEIM.

by the directors of the company in
connection with the formal notice OF
the annual meeting on April 6. being
a reply to the sweeping charges OF
nismanagement due to the dominat-
ing influence of the Guggenheim
family made by Mr. Eilers. In add
ton to the statement by the direct
ors. the following statement is made
10y Simon Guggenheim. president of
the company, in reply to a charge by
Mr. Eilers that he had little interest
in the company as a stakeholder:
Holdings Valued at 100000.
Il desire to add lin reference to the
criticism made of my stock holdings)
that my wife and myself own stock in
the company of the par value of over
s9.SOO,OOO, and bonds to the extent of
$SOO.OOO-a total of over S3.OOOOOO
Statement by Stockholders.
The statement signed by 21 direct
ors of the company is here given in
part:
THE attack is made by Mr. Karl
Eiers. who is asking proxies for him
self and a single associate, which will
give them power to elect the entire
beard of directors. In effect. the re-
quest is for a blanket authorization
to Mr.. Eilers to create an entirely new
organization subject to his sole dom
ination.
in December last, Mr.. Eilers start
ed his campaign for stockholders
votes by bringing a wholly unneces-
sary and unjustifable suit against
the company for a writ of mandamus
to permit him to examine the stock
books While the court
promptly denied the writ and dismiss
ed the petition. after the matter was
heard, the apparent object was ac-
complished. namely, wide newspaper
publicity to the various charges of
misconduct or mismanagement which
he had injected into his petition.
These charges he could not be called
upon to prove in the application
heard by the court. and they could
only be met by a denial and answer
on the part of the company setting
forth the facts.
THE suggestion or intimation Git is
not definitely charged) that the
Messrs. Guggenheim. or some of
them. have been overpaid by the
company or have received large sal !
aries is utterly without foundation. |
Aside from the president no member !
of the Guggenheim family now re-
ceives any salary whatever or has /
received a salary since January, 1919. |
The salary received by the president /
is less by $4,000 than Mr.. Eilers en-
jOyed at the time of his discharge /
The salaries paid in former years TO /
such of the Messrs Guggenheim as
held office in the company were al
ways less than salaries paid at the |
same time to other officers. Such |
salaries as they did receive were re-
dIced on their own motion in times |
OF financial stringency. The Messrs.
never participated in
any of the bonuses paid to all other
employees and officers, including Mr..
E'ilers.
1.-THE falsity of the charge that the
company was not permitted to ac-
quire a certain Bolivian tin property
examined by it because it was wanted
by Guggenheim brothers, who did ac-
qure it, is shown by the simple fact
that no tin or other property ever
considered or examined by the COM
pany has been acquired by the Gug-
with reference to the Premier
gold mining property; So far from
the company having been forced to
give up to Guggenheim brothers one
half of its option on a quarter in
terest in the property the company
the firm named to take
half of its option off it's hands, for
the reason that, while it was willing
to take a chance on a one eighth in
terest it wanted for financial rea-
sons to limit its investment and its
risk to that amount.
1.-The charges which have 10 do
with the marketing of copper (the
" ord gambling is used) are incor-
rect. misleading and grossly unjust.
ANY losses in marketing copper
were not due to any change of policy,
but were the inevitable outcome of
the sales agency arrangement under
the abnormal and unexpected condi-
tons created by the war The basic
vice of the sales agency as developed
by war conditions was the pro-rata
feature under which this company
could only sell its copper in the same
proportion that the mining companies
sold their copper. This feature the
mining companies. though repeatedly
urged by this company. would never
to forego. In justice to the
mining companies, their right to this
provision could not be questioned;
in Justice to the smelling company
the effect of that provision could only
be avoided by the termination of the
agency.
AT the start of the agency. the
mining companies utah, Ray Chino.
Nevada Consolidated and much later