Quarrels and disputes between shareholders are of frequent occurrence. Such disputes are deplored among the more intelligent promoters because they fear exposure of one sort or another. A dissatisfied shareholder may "squeal" to the police; or his woman may sit on the steps of a rival's resort, calling the attention of the police to a particular house. The policy of the business is to keep everybody satisfied and contented. Nevertheless, misunderstandings occur; on April 8th, 1912, two shareholders were engaged in a hot dispute; one of them had been a silent partner who never "came to the front" when extra demands were made on the finances of the firm, but left the other to pay the bills. It was claimed that, as a result of his neglect, the house was closed and an officer was ordered to stay inside. The business was ruined. Finally the officer was removed, whereupon the "silent" partner wished to be recognized as owning a share. As the complainant had borne the brunt of the difficulties with the police, as well as the subsequent losses, he refused; besides, he had taken in two other men as partners. The delinquent partner became very angry and threatened to send his woman to the house and to make all sorts of trouble. The two new partners advised that he receive $150 and be declared "out for good." But the silent partner was not satisfied when he heard that one of the new partners had sold his share for $1,700. So he demanded $600 more for his share, claiming that he was still a partner, which sum he subsequently received.[217] The precarious nature of such investments, depending, as it does, for its value on variations in public opinion and municipal policy, can be illustrated from former as well as current history: During the fall of 1907, the Commissioner of Police, as well as the District Attorney, became very active in closing houses of prostitution in Manhattan. An owner who was put out of business at that time made the following statement, in substance, in the presence of two witnesses: