The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-07
HUGHES AROUSES BROOKLYN.
Continued from First Page.

il liable for all the debts Of the concern.
All the liabilities OF the concern are bis
personal liabilities. In the case OF "a cor
poration, IL the stock has been properly
issued and n properly paid up, and the
corporation obeys the law. there is no lndi-
yiduql liability; the liability is that OF the
corr Grafton.
Now, those are business advantages, and
every man that he8rs ms knows that,tt' - =
most hollow pretence to talk in q Condemna
tory fashion Of corporations Tdreet apv
pl1ise.
Does my opponent di-believe in cor
roTatlOnsI Oh, no, not at all. Why b
o @ he select the word corporation AS "A
~watChword? Why, then, without attempt
ing to point out particular abuses orat least
IN his oonsures discriminating that which Ii
good from that which IL cvilp -
Why does he use the word corporation
with the effort to make il a stigma, to afik
II as a libel, 10 deal with il as a suggestion OF
corruption? Why? Because he IN. honest?
No. Because he wants Office. Applause.
Pooling the people with a name. daughter
Now, / have got a big volume here.
Laughter and applause; cry Of What IA
that, the JOuTndt?l II has something to
do with the Journal, yes.
Now, that il a legal record. 1t is a record
OF a case in our courts. 1t is a record OF
a case that arose and was tried in West
chester county that came cbefore the APP
pellate Division sitting in Brooklyn. IL ~
the record Of a case OF a young married
oma who was riding or her wheel and was
run over by a delivery wagon OF the New
York journal Laughter and hissesl
Now. o pick up the New York Ererun9
journal and you will see the words New
York Evening journal, William Randolph
Hearst. lHisses.l
Would you not suppose he owned 1t!
[Laughter.l
Would you not suppose he was the pro-
Does he not want the credit Of it?
But he does not want the liability OF it.
[Applause.l
SO when this lady, Mrs. Nell Werner,
having been injured, as she claimed, by the
carelessness OF the driver of this wagon,
wanted to sue the employer, who under the
law was responsible, she selected the man
whose name was at the head OF this paper
and made him the defendant in her suit.
And he. came into court by his attorney.
who verified the answer, which stated as
follows; THE defendant denies that on the
14th day Of May, 1897, he was the owner
or publisher of a laughterI or
that in or about the business of distributing
or transporting such newspaper he m
ployed a certain vehicle, cart or wagon. or
certain horses, drivers or other persons
And they went TO court to try their. case,
and they tried it before Judge Keogh, and
the plaintiff put in her evidence, and the
defendant said, "Oh, no, | do not own that
paper. / do not own that wagon. HI
man was not my employee. The paper
was owned and the wagon was owned n
the man was employed by a corporation. '
Laughter and applause.
His point Was that he was a corporation
editor. Now the plaintiff said, We'll,
this corporation which we say owns this
wagon and employs this driver was not a
hnnn Ada rornnrafinps "A WA /. zhEEr II
was merely a device to escape personal
liability"
There was a law at that time, which We
have substantially to-day, requiring stock
corporations to make a report showing
the amount of the capital stock, showing
the nature OF existing assets and debts,
showing the amount of the debts and the
amount which they did not exceed, show
ing the amount of the assets and the mou
which they at least eQualled, showing the
names Of the stockholders; and the statute
provided that the report should be signed
by the oath of the president or vice-presi-
dent and treasurer or secretary and filed
in the Office of the Secretary Of State and
in the office OF the County Clerk OF the county
where the principal business may be To-
Gated; and the plaintiff said such reports
nave not been filed; there has been no at
tempe to comply with the law. and this is
not an ordinary straight corporation, it
is a device"
"That was left to the jury" said Mr..
Hughes, and the jury found a verdict
OF S25, 600 for the plaintiff"
Mr.. Hughes went on to say that Mr..
Hearst was so anxious to uphold the rights
of corporations and the right 5 Of the indiVid-
uals who had protected themselves by
corporate organization tn a he too the
case to the Appellate Division Of the Supreme
Court. Mr.. Hughes quoted from docu-
ments submitted in the proceedings before
the Appellate Division:showing that the
reports of some of the:Hearst corporations
hadn't been filed. The Appellate Division
affirmed the decision of the lower court,
but Mr.. Hearst, the Republican candidate
argued, wasn't content with anything
short Of a final decision as to the rights Of
corporations, so he carried he case to the
Court of Appeals, engaging David B.. II i'll
as his attorney. That court held that the
Hearst corporations were corporations
IN act however, open to inquiry as to their
right TO continue as such at the Instance Of
the proper authorities. IL held that it was
not the province Of the jury to determine
whetherth they were corporations in good
faith or a mere form or device on the
defendants part to escape al individual
responsibility.
And 50 they reversed the Judgment
and Mr.. Hearst escaped the liability" said
Mr.. Hughes. Then he continued:
/ do not complain Of the law. have
nothing TO say in criticism Of the law. But
what is the sincerity. what is the no.
litical morality of any man who will talk
indiscriminately about corporations and
then use in his business a corporation to
shield him from liability and conduct his
business under the safeguard which oor-
poration organization alone can give him?
Applause.
Now, we have abuses Of corporate organi-
cations. Does my opponent suggest that
the law relating to corporation organization
should be repealed? Would he uEg
hat corporations should not be allowed
TO be organized? That the advantage Of
their continuance in business should be no
longer obtainable? Oh, no. He would hA