The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-03-15
4 SHAMEFUL BILL.
Heated Debate on the Meas
ure to Relieve Trusts of
All Liability.
SENATOR DALY'S STRONG sPEECH
The Measure LAS. Only Nine Friends
When Il Comes Up Senator
johnson Against II.
Especial to "Tne Jersey city News."l

TRENTON, March 10, ls9o.-ll was d
field day in the Senate this morning'and
one of the best debates of the session TOOK
place over Senate bill No. 32 which pro-
vides:-
/. 1t shall not hereafter be necessary
to set forth in any certificate, reporI
or statement required by any laW o.
this State to be made and pubHshed
or made and filed, or recorded Dy any
domestic corporation now or hereafter
organized under the act 10 Whlcn
this is a supplement, the Location OF
address of the place of business or the
Office of such corporation outside oI
the State of New Jersey, nor snal II
be necessary to set form therein the
residence or post-office address OF any
incorporation, stocknolder, director OF
other officer, but every such certiflcate
report or statement, in addition TO the
hereafter set forth therein the location
and post-office address of It's principal
office in this State maintained as re-
quired by section a OF the act 70
which this is a SUPPLEMENT- ana the
name OF the agent thereln ana N
charge thereof. and such posi-
address within this State so registered
shall be and be deemed for all pur-
poses required by the act to which this
is a supplement, the office and post
Office address of such corporation, It's
officers, directors, incorporators ana
stockholders.
Senator Vreeland, who introduced the
measure made a lengthy speech in favor
of the bill. He referred to the respect
ability and liberality of New Jerseys cor
poration laws and said the result of our
liberal policy has been the creation Oh
an annual income of about one million
dollars doing away with the necessity for
imposing q direct sseate tax upon our
citizens A departure from the generous
treatment accorded corporations means
an attack on the pocketbooks of our own
people, the probable imposition OF fresn
burdens on all individual taxpayers. Sena..
tor Vreeland then traced the history OF
our corporation laws, showing that prior
to 1892 we required a statement IN al
articles of Incorporation of the places at
which business was to be conducted OUT
side the State. 1t developed that this in
formation was not useful to us, but was
for the benefit of the taxgatherers OF
neighboring States, and hence the new
law passed in 1892, requiring corporations
to maintain an Office in New Jersey, put
not asking any statement Of business
location outside the State. The revision
of 1896 included this statute and the re-
suit was seen in an increase OF $lUo,0S0 a
year in the States receipts. Then came
the Lexow legislation of 1887 in New York
State, which practically aimed to drive
corporations out of that~State and de-
prive New Jersey of an income of $4,000
odd The Brooklyn Eagle denounced
it and the New York Sun said it was
"a Punishment of prosperity by law.
The New Jersey Legislature ofs1S97, how
ever. promptly passed an act which
checkmated the New York movement.
This new law was similar to one existing
in Massachusetts and other progressive
States. New York then attempted a
double tax on corporations. The Senator
described this legislation, and went on to
explain the bill pending. which he said
was a substitute reported by committee
for four bills originally introduced, and
which substitute provides in thorough
manner for the incorporation and govern
l0f
bill by section.
Senator DAILY replied to Mr.. Vreeland
with all his old-time vigor. He said
/ sincerely trust that the Senate will
put the stamp of its disapproval upon this
bill. It's provisions, formulated solely in
the interests of corporations, and by
which it proposes toLeonceal from the
public all information possible in regard
to the directors and officers of corpora
tions, contemplate a sweeping change.
The Legislature of 1872 Claws of 1872,
page 20 provided that it should be inn
perative upon corporations that they he
IN the office of the Secretary of State,
annually, within thirty days after every
election of directors, statement anthem
ticated by the signatures of the president
and secretary, containing the names or
all the directors and officers, with the
date of election or appointment, term OF
Office residence and post-office address on
EACH the character of it's business, the
location, giving the street and number,
if any, of it's principal office in this State,
and the name of the agent in charge of
said office upon whom process against the
corporation may be served etc, etc.
This law was amended in 1875 (Revision
page 1856, section 4y, but the provision IN
reference to officers and directors, you will
observe, was left intact. In 1877 this sec
tion was again amended. but this pro-
vision was still left in its original force
and effect. The corporation laws were
revised in 1896 and this section still un-
l,o6 al
So for twenty-five years, quarter of
century this wise provision has re-
mained upon our statute books; it has
stood practically unaltered. 1t has passed
through the crucible of criticism and
earned the sanction of time. 1t has been
subjected to amendment but it has ever
been considered an essential part OF the
law until the vicious hand of the mer-
cenary corporation has now been stretched
out toward it and its repeal demanded
The intent and object of this provision
in the law was that the pubic should
have the opportunity to judge of the char
acter of the men who managed and dl-
rected these corporate concerns; that the
business man might measure the credit OF
the corporation by the reputation of its
officers and directors; that suitors, in this
and in other States, might have easy ac-
cess to serve process, in order that their
grievances might be determined and re-
dressed; that the States interests could
be best subserved by a policy which ad-
facility for readily obtaining informa-
tion.
Who is it that demands change? Who
knocks at the door of legislation? Who
claims that it works hardship or inn
poses onerous burdens? Is it the State?
NO Is 1t the public? No. It is the ever
grasping monopoist, the aggregatiDns of
capital, those combinations of wealth that
stif1e competition and prey upon society,"
And for what good purpose do they de-
mand the repeal of this law? They tell
us that it will bring capital into the State.
corporate under our laws, that it is in
tended to protect our corporations from
the exactions of sister States. Ii there
was any merit in this proposition regard
ing the increase of revenues, / should
still object strenuously to sacrificing the
honor of my State that these corpora
tions might evade any duty they owe to
a sister State, or that we should be the
beneficiaries of one cent that could cause
misery or aid in the least degree the
propagation of these infamous trusts.
This State cannot afford to invite capi-
tai at the expense of her honor. She
cannot afford to build up her treasury
upon the tears and misery and suffering
Of the people. Nor can we afford to be
the ally of trusts and corporations against
the public veal. A no less distinguished
citizen than the late Democratic candi-
date for President, Mr.. Bryan, declared:
Corporations are the creatures of law,
and they must not be permitted to pass
from under the control of the power
which creates. They are permitted to
exist on the theory that they advance
the public veal, and they must not be
allowed to use their powers for the pub
lie injury. That, think, IS the true
conception of the rights of corporations,
and when they dem and more it is time for
US to rebuke them