The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-02-14
qRUsrs Is coRPoRArIoNS.
The Liberal Iaws Passed by Ne"
jersey.


jersey.
THE National Lead Trust has reorganized
itself into tho National Lead Company under
the law, OF New Jersey. adding ono IN Te 10
the already lonc list of large CORPORATE ms
which have formed themselves under inc
liberal statutes az that state. We hteH H'o
attribute any but business motive u &c"
Jersey IN enact T. % corporation iH" W'''n 80
drawing away New York capital iIei~on'
midway between lhiladelphia aDC new 3i-
citv Is taking advantage OF the Jolly OF N"i
ueiohb0rs and by encouraging lncoIp iaufh
pavs the whole of tho New Jersey StAio ~
pense. through fees contributed Dy cohp"-
mes from other states.
But New jersey Iu ner successful conpel-
ton for chartering corpotatlont iS cong more
than merely 20 attract New 3 OK capital she'
uerhaps uuwi .lingly. Is attempting an expert
mental solution of the trust NOOiel. IT. -
not bv accident that the sugar irusi, inc
Cotton oil Trust and the National Leao
Trust with many smaller ones. n"'e gwen up
the trust form and sought ID or ofanoh I'M
der the New jersey laws. The advantage Oh
the change IS that the title 20 their VAST prop,
erty S made safe that "a settled. wel-dehhed
and liberal policy on the part OF the 0'hlo -
secured and that their right 10 hold the STOCK
OF other corporations IN the same mo
of business IL expressly recoshiAou,
These are not small benefits. ana
trustees of such stocks realize the
fact clearly. The advantage % the puOIo
is that the trust subjects itself 10 the pro-
vision of the corporation laws Wnch coihpei
such q reasonable measure of publicity as 10
enable stockholders and the general puplIc 10
know what they are dong and III Wnat way
aud with what success. I'm snort. the National
Lead Company. to take the latest instance is
the same kind of corporation as any othtI
manufacturing or trading company: II
H.. ne
and the cure will be Open % puDhc discus
sion and action. All our common Jaw.
statutes and precedents apply TO the case al
once on incorporation.
Trusts have been formed for different rea-
sons. Some we know were got up solely 10
| extort unreasonable profits and OF these
few. like those among certain non manu- Hc-
turers may be based merely upon agreement
TO take advantage OF our protectlFe ttfiH'
/ Yet the rapid Incorporation oil othei trusts
! leads To the inference that some OK theM may
/ have been organized IN protest against exist
| inc harsh and severe corporation laws Iaihel
/ thau for extOrtiOn. The point which mas TIE
! greatest attraction for these newly lhcofpuia-
| fed trusts undoubtedly IS that the New Jer.
sey law allows them 10 hold the sto As Oh
/ other corporations. SO great Is lhls aNNaN-
tare--a privilege denied IN the corporation
laws of nearly all tho Staios and held
To he forbidden unless expressly granted
that it is possible that our most SUGGEST al
| trust the Standard OIL. would have been or
| canized "a a CORPORATION could 10 have had
such an incorporating law as tins of New Jer-
| sey Trusts have been WISE enongh 70 see
| that separate charters for the subsidiary COM
mamie, Organized IN the several States. LAy6
been necessary for local protection. low
should these subsidiary corporations DE ha'
monizedy This object was attempted 10 bs
gained by appointing trustees Who should
! hold the stocks of these small cOmpanle, ln
trust Tor the common benefit. Thus arose All
tho le.a complications md all the public
suspici0us and distrust with which
We are familiar. II seems certainly To
lie an important Gain lu the clearness
with which we can examine into the prob
| lem. If these trustees who have always
claimed 10 he above all the restraints of law.
shall voluntarily put themselves and their
acts on the common legal footing.
Here an objection should DO fairly met.
Does not the law Of New Jersey, in granting
these privileges t. trusts on incorporation.
really perpetrate under the forms OF law the
very monopoly OF the old trusts, IL must,
we think be acknowledged that the New
Jersey act does allow though II does not
enc, urage. combination. Admitting that
combination IS bad. the question remains
whether legal or illegal consolidation
IS the worse: whether II IS better u nave
a monopoly IN cotton, oil or sugar re1nins
or in lead manufacture. under laws winch ne
|, fine the rights of all concerned, OF that We
, trusts are doing. and disputng whether any.
body-stockhOlGer OF cOusumer-has any
rights at all IN the matter. There Is another
, thing 10 be considered. The New Jersey cor
; poration law did not create combination. II
, | only recognized It's pre-existence and soueh
I, to bring il under Incorporation by providing
| for II a LEGAL form. 10 Is "a cOmlnerclal lac
which we must acknowledge whether we lK
1t or not. that business IS constantly tenlin.
toward trade harmony. As partnership ls
consolidation OF individuals, ana us
simple corporation IS an advance upol
partnership, SO apparently the eyo.u
' | ton requires corporation OF corp
5 rations. A year ago Congress passed stru
I gent antitrust ACT. which was pressed upo
= the attention of United States officers through
1 out the country by the Attorney Gencral. AN
b. vet not q single conviction las been ha
d. under that severe law And If we except a.
. proceedings against the Sugar lrua
5 In New York state. which wer
e successful principally because
[ a blunder in its organization on this yer
point of an unlawful corporation o. corpora
, lions. trusts have not as yet been senousl
= disturbed in spite OF their inherent Elegant
= | and consequent weakness. In truth. We or
; growing accustomed - a harmony OF inter
ests IN business. The Vanderbilt system G.
L railways is managed IN one interest. thong
consisting of separate corporations. II
u now. controlling company should b
Y formed which should hold the stock
:, of these railways now called NaaderU lit roads
s the real situation might be more clearl
: seen. bu, would not in any essential be "a
h tered Two conclusions seem 20 follow tha
substantial benefit will accrue from bringin
g under the know principles Of lazy the wori
e ngs Of commercial forces and IN so far Lel
), ing TO solve our trust problems; and mex
5 that trust which cannot find scope for II
l. extension under liberal corporation act. br
J. prefers the form of an underlined trusteeshiI
e properly subjects its purposes and aims
II | public distrust.-New York Independent,