Evening star., 1900-03-01
A REPORT ON TRUSTS
Continued from Eleventh Page.)


4. Publicity.-Many of the witnesses. in
cluding even representatives of combina-
tions. are Of the opinion that a much
greater publicity regarding the affairs of
such combinations than is now customary
would tend to remove many of the evils.
As regards the general public, the know-
edge thus secured would avail to prevent
the maintenance of extortionate prices, as
we'll as unfair methods and conditions of
competition. Stockholders and investors
would also be protected against abuses by
promoters and officers of corporations.
How this publicity should be brought
about and the degree to which it should ex-
tend Is matter upon which no general
agreement existed among the witnesses.
Some are inclined to think that it would be
wise If somewhat detailed balance sheets of
the accounts of the larger combinations
could be made public. More of the wit
nesses. including especially lawyers and
officers of corporations, seem rather of the
opinion that when the corporation is first
organized the details regarding its organ
izatfon. the values at which plants and
other property are taken in, the profits of
the promoters. etc. should be made public.
After the corporation has been engaged in
business however, while the details of its
management should be made known with
considerable fullness to the stockholders,
the outside public should be given little
more Information than at present. lest
thereby competitors may secure an advan-
tage.
Many of the witnesses believe that pub
Ecity. II properly established and enforced,
WOulu prove a very effclent remedy. Others
think that, while it might be useful, it
would not alone be sufficient. AT least one
of the witnesses is Of the opinion that this
publicity should be enforced upon all public
corporations, such railways, street rail-
ways. etc, but not upon ordinary manufac-
turing or mercantile corporations.
Strong differences of opinion exist among
the different witnesses at to whether legis-
lation along any of the lines suggested, or
additional legislation, should be by the in
dividual states or by the federal govern
ment. The witnesses also disagree as to
the constitutionality of various forms of
legislation. both in the case of the states
and in the case of the federal government
Some witnesses were of the opinion that
state legislation would be of little service
unless practically all of the states adopted
uniform laws, and this is considered an i'm
possibility. Others seem to think that Iegis-
lation even by few of the states, if of the
right kind. would be very useful. There is
perhaps, however. a rather general express
sion of opinion among those who favor any
legislation at all that federal legislation if
constitutional, Is desirable at least to sup
plement state legislation as to combina-
tionS. II not, perhaps. to take entire juris-
diction regarding them.
8. State legfslation.-The chief specific
suggestions regarding state legislation We're:
(D The classification of corporations
should be made much stricter than at pres
ent, and each class should be confined
closely to the exercise of its specified pow
ers.
(b) There should be strict inspection of
corporations by state officials, and pub
licity should be enforced through reports
This. of course, applies primarily to action
by the states as regards their own domes-
tic corporations. (See also above, under
publicity)
(c) Combinations. in whatever form (even
II 1t be that of a single corporation) be-
tween different corporations. where monop-
onst1c intent can be shown, should be pro-
hibited. (See also above, under suppress
Sion)
(d) Eoraiop oornoro.;o,,. .La,, .,.,
den by each state to do business within its
borders unless conforming to its laws As
TO TINS last suggestion, the powers of states
over foreign corporations, far as their
interstate business is concerned, would be
very limited. 1t appears that the courts
would be likely to hold that the states
would require a special authorization from
Congress to enable them to act with any
considerable effectiveness in this regard
even If the power could be secured in that
way.
u. Federal legislation.-The lines of fed
eral legislation suggested fall mainly under
the following heads:
(a) Creation of federal corporations un-
der strict federal laws. Some would favor
Incorporation under federal laws only in
case of very large corporations, while from
the legal standpoint some others would fix
the distinction between state and federal
corporations along the line of commerce
WITHIN the states as distinguished from in
lerstate commerce. The rcpresen tatives of
combinations favoring such federal laws
consider that one of their chief advantages
would be to prevent unwarranted interfer-
ence with the business of the corporations
by Individual states. Some of the witnesses,
however. consider that the creation of fed
eral corporations would be harmful as well
as unconstitutional
ID In connection with federal incornora-
ton, or apart from it, certain witnesses
favor considerable degree of regulation,
OF corporations on the part of the federal
government In this connection, publicity.
md inc,
ed. bureau of industry is suggested by
one witness. having powers somewhat sim
liar to those of the Interstate commerr,
commission. The reports to be made 10 This
body should be of such nature as to dis
close the condition of the business of the
corporation, especially as to whether II nos
sessed Or was likely to acquire monopoly
or rot.
(c) Strengthen interstate commerce com
mission.-Some Of the witnesses compIajn
OF the inefticiency of the interstate com
merce commission. Others urge that il he
given greater power, even judicial power
and that pooling among railroads he ner
m1tted under its supervision. Especially is
1t recommended in the testimony taken he
fore the subcommission on transportation
that Its hands be strengthened by giving
1t power of audit of railway accounts
power of enforcing its decisions. etc. If
belnS urged that in this way freight dis
erimlnations in favor of the large shippers,
the combinations, could be prevented
(d) Two witnesses are inclined to the onin
ion that unless Congress in some wav as
sumes full control of corporations the Unit
ed States government should remove by
specific act of Congress, the limitations
which now are likely to be laid by the
courts, on the basis of the federal Constitu-
uon, upon the powers of the states over
monopoistic combinations so far as their
Interstate business is concerned 1t was
thought, on the whole that such an act of
Congress would probably be upheld as con-
stitutional by the courts
(e) Removal or lowering of tariff-SeyeraI
or the witnesses, though not obiectine in
the main to the principle of a protective
tariff, were of the opinion that in some
cases the tariff encouraged, or, even, as
one said, was the chief cause of the trust
In such cases they thought it should be
lowered or abolished. Mr.. Havemeyer ex-
pressed himself most strongly in favor of
a low horizontal tariff of not over 10 per
cent while Mr.. Buynitsky proposed that
II there were shown to be a monoDoIy in
any protected industry the President might
be empowered to lower the tariff on the
products of that industry, by executive
order, not more than % per cent, nor for
longer period than five years.
f) Powers of Congress.-Much discussion
was presented before the commission as
thn