DIVISION SIX — BUSINESS. 



419 



out the syndicate resulted in almost a unanimous vote for the measure — 

 1,677.12 shares being voted for it, and 291.78 against." 



Yet even this did not end the trouble, for the controversy still went on 

 by tongue, and through the press. And the Unio7i of October i6th con- 

 tained ofiicial notice that on October 10, 1885, the directors had ordered an 

 assessment of 45 cents per share on the stock, payable on or before Novem- 

 ber 1 2th, to purchase the interest of John Allin, O. S. Picher and H. F. 

 Goodwin in the syndicate lands — the amount being $312.50 for each in- 

 terest ; also to pay $337.65 of debts legally incurred by the company. This 

 was called "Assessment No. 3." I suppose the 12 cents levy was No. i ; 

 and I did not find No. 2. 



On January 23, 1886, another mass meeting was held in Williams Hall, 

 of which the Union [29th] said: "The water meeting Saturday evening 

 was a large and exciting o?te." Abbot Kinney presided. C. T. Hopkins 

 and C. C. Brown locked horns on the matters in controversy, and were the 

 principal speakers. But short speeches were also made by C. C. Thompson, 

 Dr. Lyman Allen, S. Washburn, O. S. Picher, Samuel Stratton, H. W. 

 Magee, Geo. E. Meharry, and some others — all boiling hot on the "water 

 question." On the ensuing Monday another election took place ; and as to 

 its points, purposes, and results, I quote from the Union of January 29, 

 1886, the following : 



" The water election Monday, January 25th, was the great event of the 

 winter, and drew out an immense amount of interest on both sides. These 

 sides may be designated as the old board of directors, and the opposition 

 thereto, the latter indicating a difference of opinion with said old board as to 

 management of the Company. The friends of the old board put in nomina- 

 tion C. C. Brown, M. H. Weight, A. V. Dunsmore and W. Freeman. The 

 opposition thereto named S. Townsend, Justus Brockway, H. F. Goodwin, 

 Thomas Banbury and R. Williams. Mr. Townsend however, withdrew 

 early in the fight, leaving the ticket, like the other with only four, and these 

 prevailed over the old board by a total vote of 7,138 shares to 4,830 shares. 

 The amount of stock voted was 3,010 shares, indicating a most creditable 

 interest in the affairs of the Company, for only about 3,300 shares have been 

 issued. Each stockholder, of course, voted according to the number of his 

 shares. These shares he might divide among different candidates, or con- 

 centrate all on a lesser number — even down to one. It thus follows that 

 the vote is presented in two different ways — first as indicating the number of 

 shares voted for each, and second, as showing the number of votes each 

 received by this cumulative process. Taken on the first basis — that of 

 shares, the vote was as follows : 



BY SHARES. BY VOTES. 



Brockway 1,625 S^? Brockway 2,845 



Goodwin 1,742 2-7 Goodwin 3,049 



Banbury 1,675 i"? Banbury 2,932 



Williams 1,631 3-7 Williams 2,855 



Brown 2,0644-7 Brown 3>6i3 



Weight 952 4-7 Weight 1,667 



Dunsmore 886 2-7 Dunsmore i,55i 



Freeman 9266-7 Freeman 1,622 



Townsend 464 



