Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-01-21
PUBLICITY FOR TRUSTS.

publicity Tor corporations now pro-
J osed as panacoa for the Trusts is
hot new idea TO Hawaii The ,,ame
theory has often been advanced local
ly by minority stockholders who feel
that they have been sighted and by the
public as well who think they should
know more OF what the corporations
are doing. Publicity" appeals to the
average American. He wants TO know
and believes he has a right TO know
the details OF corporate or other forces
which have real or supposed influ-
ence on his welfare.
II was therefore rather surprise
when the dispatches announced the
views of Martin A. Knapp. chairman
of the Interstate Commerce Commits.
sion in radical opposition to the pub,
licity theory. Mr.. Knapp in his ad-
dress before the American Association
for the Advancement Of Science. said:
IL maintain that the stakeholder. as
such. is not benefited by corporate
4 publicity. and would be harmed rather
/ than helped by its enforcement II is
\ one thing for the stockholder to have
( knowledge OF the concern whose shares
he holds; II Is quite another thing to
furnish the public the same informa-
ton. | fail to see that publicity can he
desirable or useful to the stakeholder.
"The justification for this proposal,
therefore, must be found. II found at
all. in the theory that the state is
charged with the duty OF safeguarding
the investment OF capital In corporate
securities. To my mind this is a most
serious proposition. and think we
should long hesitate before embarking
/ upon such paternal venture Leaving
out the Spectator, and taking into ac.
count only those seeking honest invest
ment ten times more money, to say the
least has been sunk in farm mort
cages, suburban lots patent rights
! buying and selling grain. Gotten. and
ether commodities. where no corporate
shares were dealt in or even existed
than was ever lost on account of the
fictitious or excessive issue of corpor.
( gte securities.
Il cannot but regard corporate pub
/ llCity, of the kind and TO the extent
advocated by many. as certain and
serious hindrance to effective COMPETE
d ton. Just as the sherman antitrust
law, which Is based upon an economic
! fallacy, has indirectly aided the very
results 1t was designed to prevent, to
the compulsory disclosure OF all corr
porate transactions would undermine
The competition II was intended TO sup
frorL ! .a1 #'.EI -. i''.g IA
!. Bearing in mind how rapidly all
kinds of business are assuming the COR
! rorate form, that the competition OF
Individuals is fast disappearing. and
that competition in the future will Je
mainly between corporations II seems
| plain TO me that the enforcement Of
/ corporate publicity would be an added
/ Incentive to industrial combination.
| Therefore. as ] view the matter. the
remedy in question will be worthless 10
/ the great mass Of people, the consum-
Frs, for their troubles are not caused by
watered stock, and will not be allev-
I lated by publicity. II will not benefit
the actual stakeholder. for. however
much he may need information for
himself. his interests would not be pro-
moted by bringing that information TO
public knowledge. Against It's doubt
tuE and very limited usefulness TO the
intending purchaser of corporate shares
Is the danger mot 10 be lightly esti-
mated. OF giving sanction TO prin-
ciple of extreme paternalism and fur
nithing a fresh impulse not 10 com
Eete but to consolidate" .
Knapp's opinions bring ont much
that will set the people thinking Few
! stockholders want the business of their
| corporation known to competitors. As
Knapp has knocked several holes in
publicity plans the. people would profit
by his theory for holding the corpora
lions in check. Can it be that these
| organizations have got beyond the
! power Of control by law? 10 p
AnAMic RIRTInAN "a.