Don't Waste the whisky trust --oops fixed the type-os

[grladams at teleport.com]

Dangit. Sorry. fixed the typeos.

Original Message:
-----------------
From: grladams at teleport.com grladams at teleport.com
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:11:31 -0500
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Don't Waste the whisky trust


So, here's what this seems to mean to me, prof, what do you think.. By the
way ASK your local librarian if s/he can hook you into NY Times Historical,
before paying for this Article Pack product of the NYTimes. 

OK, so Waste is a term that changed, from a previous meaning, to a 1903
meaning, or at least a meaning after the precedents that were set, with
among others, Pynchon VS Stearns as one of the ?loophole finders? So that
now plowing up a meadow on farmland isn't waste any more, but it used to
be, damn, look out on our country tiz of thee and see what we've inherited. 

Were the Pynchons (like all good Americans?) finders of loopholes? So the
railroads versus pampas grasslands polemic is addressed here somehow, with
the Waste law. 

By the way did anyone note the George M Pynchon Senior's involvement in the
whisky trust issues of the 1890's? In his youth as a mere figurehead -- a
clerk -- an owner of the old whisky trust stock, represented by a law firm
Greenhut and Morris which represented a brokerage, Gugenheimer, Untermyer,
& Marshall, and also with a Mr Anness, co-owners of 15,000 shares of the
old whisky stock, filed a suit restraining the Reorganization Committee of
the Distilling and Cattle Feeding Company (AKA Whisky Trust) from becoming
purchasers of 18 Chicago Properties.. They tried to use their New York
state court to influence the feds. See http://tinyurl.com/2dulwn for
background on the Whiskey trust. NYTimes August 2nd, 1895, p.9 States a
member of the Reorganization committee, "so that it is very apparent that
the suit has been instituted solely for it's influence on the market." and
"it is hardly to be supposed that when the merits of the case are gone
through and the true standing of the promoters laid before the Court that a
decision other than one favorable to the committee will be given.." 

And a few days later August 7th, the judge Judge O'Brien, says, of firm
Morris and Greenhut, "They want to delay the reorganization so that the
market price of this stock may move down, as it will if this motion is
granted, then they stand a show of making good a portion of the enormous
losses they have entailed on themselves by selling these stocks short,
losses estimated at between $700,000 and 800,000. These two men seek for
delay in order to be put off as long as possible the accounting to be
demanded of them for so mismanaging this company, for their own private
gain, that it's stock fell to $8 a share..." 

Then a few weeks later, the fight is still continuing escalating to a
question of whether whisky a "necessary of life issue".. Someone with a
lawyer background check it out, I got lost in the August 28th, 1895 one, on
p 8, "Is whisky necessary" article and couldn't figure it out plus I'm
screwing around at work and need to stopit stopit with the pynchon list...  
Jill

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint




--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint