making it, in his own language, "the snuggest property on the continent;" but his enemies attributed the fact to another reason, namely, Mr. Gould's own management, by which he was alleged to have starved the other properties to feed the Missouri Pacific. His holdings of the latter's stock were immense, while his pecuniary interest in the others was comparatively small; indeed, he held but a few hundred shares of Missouri, Kansas and Texas, though its president. His purpose was evidently to swell the earnings of the Missouri Pacific to such an extent that he could declare big dividends and sell his stock at high figures. He succeeded in pushing the price up to 112 in May, 1887, but it subsequently fell to 70-1/4 in March, 1888. The lack of public confidence in Gould's railroad methods is strikingly exhibited in the fact that though Missouri Pacific paid 6 to 7 per cent. annual dividends, Gould found it almost impossible to keep the price at par except by the pegging process, while other equal dividend-*payers brought from 110 to 130 in the market without manipulation. The same fact was also strikingly exhibited in Western Union, which paid dividends, but sold at from 70 to 80.
Finally the stockholders of the Missouri, Kansas and Texas became indignant at the destruction of their property. Much of the stock was held abroad and was only worth $13 to $15 per share of $100. They engaged E. Ellery Anderson, the same who had been a member of the Pacific Railroad Commission, and Simon Sterne, who had been the counsel
