Evening star., 1928-03-02

tracts as an agent of others at the re-
quest of all parties. but the suit was
not directed at him; he was not n dc-
fendant, but a witness. There was alb
Solutcly no Judgment again Mr.
Hoover rendered at any time.
An examination of the actual issues
IN the case shows that even had he been
defendant. the actual law suit offers
no basis for criticism against him.
The suit involved n contract between
Chinese, Belgian. English and German
interests growing out of a reorganization
If Chinese industrial concern in finan-
Cial difficulties, and was brought in the
English court
The contracts were negotiated by
agents Of their respective natlonalities
with the assistance Of the Belgian anc
other legations in China. Mr.. Hoover
was engaged as al engineer. and later
for short time, the manager.
The real question in tho case was rs
to the binding effect Of a certain l1rmo-
randum signed by Mr.. Hoover rs agent
Of one of The parties. together with 9th
er agents. ii being provided i'll SaiC
memoranda made al The time &
the reorganization that a Chinese board
was 10 participate III the management.
OF the company and the former Chinese
director general was To continue.
During Mr.. HooverS administration
the contract was complied with. al
though difficulties arose over custody oi
title deeds which Mr.. Hoover insisted OIL
having placed in care of uank. III the
name of the company Tor the rrotoc-
ton of all parties.
Hoover Retired.
Some eight or nine months after the
reorganization was completed changc
of stockholders control took place, Mr.
Hoover retired from the concern as
manager. and the group which came
INTO control then repudiated portion
Of the contract made under the rcor-
sanitation by ignoring the Chinese local
board of directors.
Out Of the change in control bitter
quarrel grew up among the diverse ma
tional interests. But when the issues
were finally drawn it became simply a
question as TO whether or not the said
supplemental memorandum was to bf
carried out. The Chinese complainants
in bringing their action naturally ask
ed as an alternative that the original
contracts be rescinded and certain
properties III the reorganization be re-
stored.
The judgment declared the memo
randum TO be valid and binding. dis
missed all other questions except as &c
damages for breach of the contract
and, upon appeal. even this was dis
missed as to the concern for which Mr.
Hoover had acted as agent
The case was of considerable public
interest at the time. and was carefully
reviewed editorially in the London Time!
of March :, 1905. The Times sum
mary of the actual issues is in acCorc
with the above Incidentally. this re-
view does not even mention Mr.. Hoover
Charges Exploded.
Unprincipled persons circulated slam
derous stories on this subject foV
years ago. They were investigated hl
an eminent firm Of lawyers and cXpiod'
ed at that time, and now they arc
picked UP out OF the gutter for use II
the present campaign.
At the time Baron de Cartier. The
Belgian Ambassador to the United
States, who at the time Of the leor'
eanization mentioned represented Bel
eian interests. wrote letter Vigorously
denouncing these ISLANDERS upon Mr.
Hoover, as did likewise the chairman
of the company and various lawyers II