The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1905-10-18
LAURENS, S. c., Oct. IS, 1905.
THE MILLS AND LEGISLATION.

Other evidences of unrest in re-
gard to the cotton mill situation in
South Carolina continue to come to
the surface. The following is taken
from a Charleston dispatch to the
S~partanburg Journal:
"It is understood that at the coming
session of the legislature, for the pro-
lection of banks and investors a bill
will be introduced to require the Offices
of president and treasurer of mills to
be held by different parties the paper of
the concerns to be signed by other mill
officers than the president. Probably a
bill for the creation of a new state Of
ticer whose business shall be solely to
examine and report upon the condition
of the mills and generally to protect
public interests from rascality and
loose management by head officials of
the industrial concerns"
We think that the legislature should
be slow and careful in considering leg
islation relating to the cotton mill
companies or other property rights.
Cotton mills are not common carriers
or life insurance companies; the people
have not the intimate connection with
them that they have with the former.
Over one hundred thousand South
Carolinians derive a living or an in
come from the mills. Every cotton
planter and thousands of growers of
country produce are deeply interested
in their success.
Year by year the mills should pros
nor oro1 hnnnpon r,o,tnc hn1n, 70 tLo
people of the State.
If an officer or commission be needed
to protect the interests of the mills and
the people, let the legislature appoint
him or provide it. We doubt if Ell
Their be needed. We are not prepared
TO say.
If the mill companies cannot be re-
lied upon to place proper checks upon
the conduct of their financial officers,
let the legislature act.
When anything is asked by the mill
operatives the legislature should give it
liberal and serious consideration. 1t
must never be forgotten that the hum
blest person in the weave room is en-
titled to the same regard from the law
makers as is the president or mill
owner. The best policy is for the leg
islature to severely let the mills alone,
owners, operatives and officers, unless
the demand for legislation is sharp;
unless the facts show an urgent and
positive need for it.
If the mill owners wish the legisla-
ture to keep hands off they must act
fairly and not abuse their powers.
Of course the majority must rule.
But the majority must not grind and
crush. In a stockholders meeting, if
n man own more than half the stock
that means that he owns just that much
more than half the brick, timber, land
and other property. 1t is not like a pri-
mary election in which Smiths vote is
as good as Browns. Now the man that
owns more than one-half the pounds of
property, that has more than one-half
the physical power, in a cotton mill has
no right to crush the man who owns
less than half. 1t is his duty to use it
so that the energy of both shall COM
bine and produce all that is possible for
both. When the bigger man shows a
disposition to hurt or destroy the small
er, then the public, the State, the peo-
pie must come in and stop the destruc-
ton. Otherwise the State would lose
all that was destroyed.
The Legislature might find it worth
while to consider the relation of the
mills selling agents and the mills. The
mill agent naturally wants to get all
the money they can out of the mill. 1t
is his interest to charge as high COM
missions as he can get. The interest of
the stakeholder is that the smallest
possible commissions be paid. If a mill
agent be also a stakeholder, it is his
interest still to make all he can as
agent, to charge high commissions.
For instance Mr.. Milliken's firm owns
nearly a third of Laurens Mills. At a
per cent his commissions are about
$50, 600. AT two per cent about SIS, 600.
If the annual dividend were reduced
from IL to 8 per cent he would draw on
his s. < 50, 1888 instead of SID, 600.
But he loses $15,0 900 by the cutting
down of the commissions, only one
third of which would GO to him as a
stakeholder.
Thus the interest of the stock holder
and mill agent are at enmity. They
clash.
The directors of a mill are the repre-
sentatives of the stockholders. They
are entrusted with the duty of running
the mill solely in the interest of the
stockholders, with due regard to the
hired help from the president down.
Now can a mill agent be true to his
interest as a mill agent and true to his
interest as a stakeholder? We shall
not express a positive opinion low.
There may be two sides to the ques-
ton. But it is worth the consideration
of legislators. An Act might be adj
visable making selling agents ineligible
to membership in the board of direc-
tors.
Again. South Carolina mills ought to
be governed at home if they are owned
at home. A director who lives here in
Laurens will be disposed to be fair to
everybody more than will the man in
Boston. The home man knows and