THE CUBA REVIEW 



THE CUBAN PORTS COMPANY 



One of the most important decisions of the Supreme Court in relation to the Cuban 

 Ports Company concession annuhnent is that rendered October 8th. 



It was the second appeal made by the company. The court holds that President 

 Menocal was right in his contention that the present company cannot be considered as 

 holder of the original concession, as it was not organized in accordance with the law. 



The court's Jirst decision. October 3rd, held President ^Menocal's action in annulling 

 the company's concession was not unconstitutional. The second appeal was against the 

 presidential decree cancelling the concession. 



The hopes of the Cuban Ports Company now rest upon a civil suit, in which it expects 

 to have no difficulty in showing that it was organized according to the laws, which is the 

 principal point involved. On October 1st, Eugene Klapp, president of the Cuban Ports 

 Company, formally notified the Cuban government of his intention of filing such suit. 



The government on September 2~th began another suit against the Ports Company with 

 the object of dissolving its contract with the government on the ground that it was 

 ■'prejudicial to the public interest." 



This suit takes advantage of an old Spanish law governing public works, which allows 

 the State to bring suit for the cancelation of any contract which is thought harmful to its 

 own interests. 



Some of the biggest engineering and contracting firms in New York City stand to lose 

 large sums of money through President jNIenocal's revocation of the Ports Company 

 concession sustained by the Supreme Court at Havana on October 8th. 



These firms include MacArthur Brothers of 11 Pine Street, who, in association with 

 Walker, Sons & Co. of London, formed the MacArthur-Perks Company, Ltd., which 

 undertook a large part of the work; Michael J. Dady. the old-time Brooklyn politician 

 and contractor, and the Snare & Triest Company. Still another part went to the Bowers 

 Southern Dredging Company of Galveston. 



These sub-contractors proceeded to move into the Cuban harbors extensive plants for 

 dredging, including steam shovels, the most improved dredges, etc. The value of these 

 plants is put by them at $2,000,000. Under the CubanI laws 75 per cent of the men em- 

 ployed were citizens of the island, but the skilled workmen were nearly all Americans, 

 and' they numbered between 2,000 and 3,000. 



John R. MacArthur of MacArthur Brothers, R. P. Clark, president of the Bowers 

 Southern Dredging Company; Michael J. Dady, Frederick Snare of Snare & Triest, 

 and Mr. Trumbo called later on Secretary of State Bryan in reference to their interests. 

 In their talk with Mr. Bryan the sub-contractors took the view that the United States 

 government, through the adoption of the Piatt amendment, had put itself in a different 

 relation toward Cuba than it bears to any other of the Spanish-American republics. That 

 relation, they argued, involved an obligation on the part of the United States to safe- 

 guard the property rights of all foreigners, which in this case would include the English 

 bondholders and the American contractors, to say nothing of the original concessionaries. 



According to the Xctu York Times despatch they were advised that the policy of the 

 State Department would remain unchanged, and that this government could not see any 

 way in which it could intervene. 



In reply to recent inquiries by the British minister at Havana as to what tlie intentions 

 of the government were towards the lx)nd and stock holders, of whom many were be- 

 lieved to be British subjects who had made bona fide investments in the company by 

 purchases in the open markets, Sr. de la Torriente, the secretary of state, replied that 

 both bond and stock holders would have to bring an action against the Ports Company 

 and the Trust Company of Cuba in the Criminal Courts, that the government would do 

 the same, and would do all in their power to assist those bond and stock holders. He 

 added, further, that those against whom criminal proceedings were taken were liable as 

 regards all of their property of whatever nature. 



This last remark, says the I.oudoii /icoitoniist, hints at an endeavor "to put into con- 

 tribution the personal estates in Culja of those responsible for the promotion of the 

 company. .An action in the Cultan Courts is a (Hlficult undertaking, and there will be 

 little chance of success unless bond and share holders are able to co-operate. For the 

 moment what is required is a nuicii more complete disclosure of the facts, and above all 

 a full answer from the company to the facts and arguments of President Menocal. Their 

 continuous silence would be regarded in most (|uarters as damaging evidence against 

 them. Whether an action in the English Courts is advisaljle the Itondholders themselves 

 must decide, but they must not delay, or the assistance which at present is being held out 

 to them will 1)C of no value." 



