The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-09-17
SOLUTION
Continued from First Page)


upon every corporation doing business out
side Of the state in which it is organized
such limitations and restrictions as may
be necessary for the protection Of the pub
lie good
Colonel Bryan at this point read the "a
NOUS circular letter advertising the in
corporation laws of Delaware. He com
mented sarcasticany on advantages SCI
forth in the letter.
A person in the audience inquired: del
aware and New Jersey are both Demo
cratic states, are they not?'' to which Mr.
Bryan replied: They were not in 1896"
He continued: 81 have read this letter
in order to show you that where a state
can gain an advantage from the incorpora-
ton Of these great aggregations of wealth
it is not safe to place the people Of other
states at the tender mercy Of the people
OF such a state as may desire to secure it's
running expenses from the taxation Of cor
porations organized to prey upon people
outside
zone method for the humiliation of
trusts has occurred to me, and to me #
seems a complete method. 1t may not
commend itself 10 you. It IS this: That
congress should pass law providing that
no corporation organized in any state
should do business outside of the state
IN which it IS organized until it receives
from some power created by congress a
license authorizing It TO DO business out
side OF its own state. (Applause) Now
II the corporation must COTE to this body
created by congress, to secure permission
te do business outside the state, then that
license can be granted upon conditions
which will, IN the first place, prevent the
watering OF stock: in the second place,
prevent monopoly in any branch Of bust
ness; and, third, provide for publicity as
to all the transactions and business Of the
corporation.
eff it IS unconstitutional and so de-
clared by the supreme court, I am in
favor Of an amendment to the constitu-
ton that will give to congress power to
destroy every trust in the country. The
first condition which suggested was that
no water should be allowed in the stock.
I do not believe that any state should per-
NIT the organization Of any corporation
with a single drop Of water in the stock
OF that corporation. Why should the cor
poration be permitted to put out stock That
represents no real value. No man can
defend stock that does not represent
money invested, and only IN the case Of a
monopoly can you secure dividends upon
stock that does not represent money in
vested.
I'VE had a case in Nebraska where we
tried to regulate railroad rates, and one
railroad in our state was capitalized and
bonded for more than five times what It
would cost TO duplicate the road, and yet
the Judge held that in fixing rates we had
to consider the watered stock as well as
the actual value of that road. When the
case went to the supreme court, decis-
ion was rendered which was, in substance,
that IN determining what was reason
able rate we had to take into considera-
ton a number Of things besides the pres
ent value OF that road, measured by the
cost Of reproduction, and you viii find
that IL the watering Of the stock is per-
mitted, then the cry Of innocent purchaser
IS raised, and you viii be told that you
must protect the man who bought this
stock. My Judgment is that no man can
stand IN the position OF an innocent pur-
chaser who buys stock in corporation. If
that stock is not represented by actual
money invested, because he can find out
what the stock stands for If he Will only
investigate.
IF this license is granted, then the
first conditions can be that any corpora
ton desiring to do business outside of
the state in which It is organized shall
bring to that board or body proof that
that stock IS bona fide and that there IS
no water IN it. In my judgment when
you take from monopoly the power to is
sue stock not represented by money you
Will go no more than half the way tow
ards destroying monopoly in the United
States. You can provide for publicity
and that annually or at other times the
corporation shall make returns of its
business and when you provide for pub
ilcity so that the public shall know just
what there is in the corporation, you win
go another long step towards the de-
structon Of the principle of monopoly.
'A~third condition: suggest that this
license shall not be granted until the
corporation show thai it has not had a
monopoly and is not attempting a mon
opoly Of any branch of industry or any
article of merchandise and then provide
that II tho law is violated the license can
be revoked.
Now, I may be mistaken. but It has
seemed to me that this method OF deal
Ing with the trusts would prove an ef-
fective method. I do not say there shall
be no private corporations. but say that
corporation / screated by law, it is
created for the public good and it should