New-York tribune., 1903-04-14
CORPORATIONS AND NATURAL RIGHTS.


certain disposition may be noted In some
quarters to speak Of the Northern Securities de-
cision as revolutionary and declare that 1t
makes war on property and the natural rights
Of men TO buy and sell The right of the gov
ernment TO regulate the conduct Of the two rail-
roads is conceded, but how. it is asked, can the
government forbid their common ownership,
either through the same individuals purchasing
the shares of both or by means OF a securlueS
holding corporation? Before accepting any such
view it is well TO recall the distinction between
individual and corporate property, between the
status of a person as an owner Of natural prop
erty and member Of an artificial corporation.
These distinctions are commonly ignored by cor
poration managers who wish to exercise all the
mower of concentrated wealth. with all the ire
sponsibility Of impersonal organization and all
the freedom of the individual to do what be will
with his own.
1t is too often forgotten that corporations have
no natural rights The natural right Of prop
ertv consists Of the individuals right to pos
sess and enjoy the fruits Of his own labor. AS
sociation creates an artificial condition, ana
even the most simple partnership is subject to
restriction and regulation, and IN some tunes
and places partnership has been forbidden ana
competition enforced by making every man con-
duct business his own sole responsibility.
The corporation is the creation Of law. 1t is
chartered to do certain things. and do them in
a certain way. and no matter how much 1t may
be restricted from doing things which an IN
dividual Of equal wealth might do, it has no
right to complain. Moreover, the person VINO
Joins with others to form a corporation is just
Iy subject to restriction as to the way he shall
use his property so embarked II he does not
like the conditions proposed he may engage in
afP cr1hia RI "a
limitations upon individual enterprise. He has
no inherent right to sell to rival. He is al
lowed TO associate himself with others in a
corporation free from personal liability Tor
debts perhaps enjoying the privilege Of emil
nent domain, and at any rate having the great
advantage in competition with his fellows due
TO concentrated wealth. only for the purpose
of carrying on the particular business or MS
charter not for the purpose Of handing that
trust over to somebody else.
There are many corporations. such as cluoS'
where no right Of members to transfer owner
shin exists. Others, like stock exchanges, allow
the selling Of an individuals share in a cor
poration only to approved persons, and the III
dfvi6uaI member is forbidden to buy share IN
a rival exchange In still others associates nave
a right to buy before outsiders, and so MAINTAIN
a close corporation In the common business
corporation the law mas peTUQltleu
sale but certainly it violates no natural rlghe
when it says that stockholders may not dispose
Of their interest In something which exists
purely by favor of the State In a way mat is
contrary TO public policy and might deIeat the
very ends for which the corporation Is char-
tered.
1t is common to consider charters as permls-
sions to do business which it is unJustlnabe 1or
the State to hedge about with restrictions we
hear great deal about it every time corpora
ton tax is levied. Incorporation is SPOKEN Oh
as mere form which must be comphed Win
in order to exercise natural right just as IN
some States license must be secured TO marry.
But there is no such natural right Inc great
consolidation of property may be along the hnes
of healthy development, and people VINO ~af
against 1t may be foolish and demagog1c, but -
far as that consolidation depends upon the e3-
ercise of corporate powers-and 1t is clear that
no individual, no matter how able and rlch, can
in the status OF natural person accomplish
what is being done TO unity our railroads ana
fndustries-the consolidation is and ought to be
subject to the regulation Of government ana