The Indianapolis times., 1930-04-09
Result of Vote to Be Made
Known at Meeting
Late Today.
EATON BELIEVED BEATEN
Proponents of Consolidation
Claim Easy Victory in
BaIIOting.
BY HARRY w. SHARPE
United Press stan Corresnondent


Stockholders of youngstown Sheet
and Tube Company met here at IL
a. m. today and adjourned until 8
p. m, when formal announcement
will be made as to whether the
Sheet and Tube Bethlehem Steel
Corporation merger has been rati-
fed.
Adjournment was ordered after it
was announced that tallying of the
stockholders vote, forced through in
turbulent session late Tuesday
night, could not, be completed until
late today.
Meantime, merger proponents
were claiming overwhelming victory,
asserting they polled $4,000 shares,
10000 more than required to win.
Injunction Is Denied
An injunction to restrain the
Sheet and Tube proxy committee
from voting 51,O3S contested shares
OF stock in the proposed merger was
denied today by Common Pleas
Judge G. S. Turnbaugh.
The injunction was sought by Otis
& Co. of Cleveland, of which Cyrus
S. Eaton, chief opponent of the
merger, is a partner. The contest
ed shares were voted by the proxy
committee Tuesday night, while the
injunction proceedings were pend
ing.
The merger proponents main
tanned they had been victorious
easily.
All indications supported their
claim. Though no official state
ment on the trend of the balloting
was made, the general feeling was
that Charles M. Schwab and Eugene
Grace, directing the Bethlehem
forces, had been successful in their
battle to create an industrial giant
second only to the United States
Steel Corporation.
Eaton Attorney Objects
The stockholders convened at
8 p. m, but we're not called to order
until 1915 p. m, when, after brief
preliminaries Eugene Bennett, men,.
Der of Sheet and Tubes legal staff,
read a lengthy resolution moving
the merger be ratified. The motion
was seconded Immediately and
President Purnell ordered ballots
distributed.
This was the first indication a
vote was to be taken and Harold T.
Clark, attorney representing Eaton,
who reputedly controlled 100000
shares, leaped to his feet with an
objection.
PurnelIs order for the poll, COM
ing with dramatic Suddenness, fell
like a bombshell and there was a
brief burst of cheering.
"I object, Mr.. President" said
Clark, jumping to his feet. "There
is not a quorum of stockholders
present. The election inspectors
Charged with counting proxies of
absentees) have not finished their
work, and further object that this
vote can not be taken until Mr.
Eaton and his associates have been
furnished data bearing on Bethle-
hem's offer"
DisregardS Objections
The chair disregarded the objec-
tions and q moment later, Clark
was on his feet again.
"On behalf of Otis 81 Co." he
said, II further protest the right of
the pro-merger proxy committee
to vote 81, ,038 shares Of stock pur-
chased by Otis & Co. since March
%, now invalidated as voting stock
by the time limit fixed by the board
Of directors.
An injunction suit filed by Eaton
Tuesday in the name of Otis 81 Co,
to prevent the proxy committee
from voting the stock, and rul-
ing was expected today. The suit
contends a directorate rule, laid
down at the time the stockholders
meeting was called, specified that
stock changing hands after March
%, would not be eligible to vote.
Eaton, through the Cleveland
brokerage house IN which he is a
partner, purchased the stock last
week on the theory, according to
his associates, that with the proxy
committee deprived Of the 51,038
shares, his chances of polling one
third majority or enough votes to
win were enhanced.
AS ballots were passed among the
stockholders, Clarke entered two
more objections and then sent for
Eaton.
Supplied by Bethlehem
I'VE are advised and have reason
to believe" he said, that large
blocks Of proxies were acquired with
money supplied by Bethlehem.
hereby protest on the ground that
it involves a violation Of the Sher-
man and Clayton Antitrust acts"
Eaton arrived, accompanied by
c. A. Otis OF Otis & Co, who con-
ferred briefly with Luther NJ. Day,
associate counsel, and Day arose
and demanded to know whether
the 51,033 controversial shares
were being voted. He was answered
indirectly by Newton D. Baker,
former secretary Of war represent
ing the proxy committee, who ad-
dressed the stockholders briefly,
saying he saw no reason WHY the
shares should not be voted.