In January the Coal & Iron Company quietly held its annual election, and chose Mr. Gowen president. As the time for the postponed election of the Railroad Company came round, the activity of both sides became intense. Both Gowen, who was still in London, and the McCalmonts issued calls for proxies. The former appealed to the shareholders to save the property from passing into the hands of the Pennsylvania Central Railroad Company, which he said was believed to be the ruling power behind the McCalmont litigation. The latter objected vigorously to this charge, and pointed out that the Reading managers held only 16,500 shares of the company’s stock, and that some of them had barely enough to qualify them for the positions which they held.[181] The McCalmonts, furthermore, applied to the courts for an injunction to prevent Gowen from voting on the shares pledged as collateral for the floating debt. They maintained with some justification that these shares could not legally be voted, and that it was particularly illegal for the president to use them to elect himself.[182] On March 12 the Court of Common Pleas issued a decree regulating the conditions under which the election should be held, providing for the separate count of votes of shares transferred three months before the election, and for the ultimate reference of all disputed points to the Court. By this time Mr. Gowen had become alarmed at the apparent strength of the McCalmonts, and had come to realize that a possible disenfranchisement of a part of his own holdings on the ground of too recent transference might lessen his chances of retaining control. He recalled, however, that the annual meeting had been postponed from January 10 to March 7, and finally to March 14. This, it occurred to him, might transform it from a regular to a special meeting, and might, according to the terms of the company’s charter, make necessary the presence and vote of a majority of all the shares outstanding, instead of a simple majority of all the shares on hand. If this should be true a disenfranchisement of his holdings would be of less importance; for whether disenfranchised or not, these would form part of the total shares outstanding, of which an absolute majority would be required.