Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1905-08-15

/
completely in their hands before they
increased the stock to suit their own
convenience. However, the business
can now earn in the worst times rea-
sonable dividend on its capital, and
in good years very large profit. That
being so, how long will 1t be before
the spectators get control Of the COM
pany and multiply the stock until II
won't be able to earn decent return
in the best Of years, and at other
times will have to make good its losses
by all kinds Of dangerous financier-
ing?"
Maddox shrugged his shoulders.
mot very long," he admitted. "The
temptation to convert a hundred dol
lar share into two, three or four shares
and then peddle them of on an unsus-
pecting public, is too much for the
average financial conscience"
"Well, I'm not worrying about the
unsuspecting public which dabbles in
Wall street. At least, it's not my chief
concern. I'm thinking about the en-
ployes at whose expense this game
of never-lasting is always played soon-
sr or later; and incidentally I'm think
ing of ourselves. There isn't much
incentive in working for gang Of
spectators who'll turn US out at the
very next election. Whatever we do
will be Of doubtful value II it's undone
in year."
isn't that Just what | said the other
night?"
"Yes, but you didn't point out the
remedy.
81 don't know any, except control Of
the stock"
Then it's high time the directors
considered the ways and means of do
ing that. | believe there are plenty
of people who are ready and willing to
support a decent, honest policy-not
as a matter Of philanthropy. but as
good business-and that they can be
reached directly or indirectly. Don't
you think so?"
"Ye-es," assented Maddox. hesita-
ting: but"
Now don't let us have any butts.
Dave. You've given me good mental
send-off, and I'm gathering momen-
tum all the time. Clear the track. don't
obstruct it. But seriously, this thing
must be done or we'll be in the hands
Of the financial thimble-riggers within
a twelvemonth. Then we'll have an
other reorganization and more rob-
berry. It's an endless chain, and I, for
one, don't propose to stand by and see
the first link forged. There's more at
stake here than the future Of this one
corporation. Nobody can be blind to
the economic conditions as they exist
to-day, and only the fools want to shut
their eyes. You can't have a revolu-
tion in business methods such as we
have had in the past ten years and
leave the labor question untouched. II
1t is ignored or handled by men Of the
Trundell-Croyden type, 1t will become
a political issue, just as sure as we
live"
Maddox nodded at the emphatic
words.
"A mighty dangerous ISSUE" was
his only comment.
Dangerous and unnecessary. When
I first thought about this combination
consolidation tendency, Dave" Ken
nard went on. 81 was opposed to 1t
heart and soul. But what | have
learned has shown me more possibili-
ties for good than for evil in this thing.
Between the worst form of corporate
tyranny and the secret, private greed
of individuals. would choose the
former A little sweat-shop Is easier
to hide than big corporation"
Maddox nodded again.
But you must have policy Of some
kind" he suggested, land it mustn't be
too revolutionary"
my policy, Dave. II you can call 1t
such, is progress, more progress, and
still more progress. That isn't mere
verbiage. It's practical common-sense.
There are number of corporations in
this country which are acting on 1t to-
day, and they are among the most suc-
cessful concerns in the world. These
companies aren't straining to get the
last possible cent for their stockhold-
ers; they are always ready to show
what they are doing, they declare div
idends on an honest capital, pay the
highest possible wages, and make sure
of their ability to continue doing so by
strengthening and improving their ia
cilities in every wide-awake way. The
unions have no baneful influence in
these companies. II there were less
ignorant opposition TO the unions, they
would have better leadership and be
less dangerous. The most intelligently
led union | know of to-day is favored
rather than obstructed by the employ
ers. There are not many such unions,
nor many such corporations. but there
must be more. and | want to add one
to the list. That's not very reVolu-
tionary. is it,"
mo, but you'll frightcn a lot OF
good people away if you talk profit
sharing too soon. could see some
of our friends shake their heads the
day you mentioned that in the direct
ors' meeting"
81 didn't mean cash profit-sharing.
| don't believe that's practical, but II
1t were it would still be very limited
expedient. believe in high wages
the highest possible; but there Is a
point beyond which you can't raise
wages, and when you've reached that,
you haven't Travelled very far. 1t is
the same with any cash distribution.
The differences between capital and
labor can never be adjusted on a
money basis. Neither side would be
satisfied as long as one had more than
the other, and an equal division OF
wealth is impracticable without an
equal distribution of brains. The ap-
peal must he to some higher motive.
II the question were merely matter
OF money. it would be hopelessly sor-
did. I'm convinced there's something
more to il than this. The individuals
who cackle about an equal distribution
of property, or howl their cash cure
alls in the market-place, are either