their chances for dividends were improved. Examination of the plan shows clearly that nothing was taken from either bonds or stock which those securities had a right to retain. The bondholders could not, in any case, have received more than the earnings of the road; and an amount equal to the return previously due them was assured, whenever the road should earn it, by the new combination of mortgage and income bonds and preferred stock. As it was, in return for an assessment they retained the right to participate in any future prosperity, a right which has proved of extreme value. The plan was underwritten by Messrs. Baring Bros. & Co. and other strong foreign and American bankers, who assumed the liability of paying the assessment and of taking the stock.[446] The comment at the time was favorable. “On the whole,” said the _Railway Age_, “we do not believe that any one who is acquainted with the properties could have expected a more satisfactory plan than that which the committee has evolved.”[447] The London bondholders promptly accepted the plan. “We are disposed,” said the _Railway Times_ of London, “to regard the latest of Atchison reorganization schemes as a praiseworthy attempt to grapple with a very thorny problem.”[448] Such opposition as there was came from a minority of the stockholders, and was directed at two points: the prevention of foreclosure, and the inauguration of an entirely new administration. It was asserted that certain old members of the board of directors who had been forced to resign by the earlier disclosures, had nevertheless secured the election of successors to perpetuate their policy and to protect their interest. With a directory so constituted, it was maintained that the stockholders would have no guarantee of important changes in the executive offices, financial policies, or business methods of the company.[449] Sharp criticism was directed to a statement of the existing board which referred to the “mistakes and misfortunes of the previous management.” “Only those who believe,” said the Stockholders’ Protective Committee, “that gross irregularities, if not worse, have been perpetrated ... may be relied upon to probe to the bottom the acts of the former officers of the Atchison.”[450] On the other hand, the accusations of the committee were asserted by the directors to be unqualifiedly false.[451] It soon became apparent that the opposition could not muster enough votes to control an election, and although their fight had been begun in August, they had proxies by November for only 250,000 out of the 1,020,000 shares of stock. Recourse was had to the courts, and an attempt was made to secure at least a minority representation on the coming board by the enforcement of a provision for cumulative voting embodied in a Kansas law of 1879. This failed in November, 1894, and no further obstacle to reorganization was encountered.