New-York tribune., 1906-06-14
EVASIVE CORPORATIONS.

Mr.. Henry w. Taft is continuing his good
work in the Tobacco Trust cases. AS special
counsel for the government he carried up to
the Supreme Court the question whether cor
pOrationS, like natural persons, could refuse to
furnish evidence against themselves. The line
of reasoning taken by him in this litigation was
largely adopted by the court and he deserves
a great deal of the credit for that most i'm
portant ruling-that a corporation could not re
fuse to produce its books in proceedings against
itself on the ground that the evidence in them
might incTiminate 1t, since the constitutional
protection from standardization extended only
to individuals. The Antitrust law. while COM
pelng individuals to testify gave them full
immunity for themselves from prosecution for
any offences SO revealed, but the corporation
could, nevertheless, be punished for offences
which they revealed. Being a creature of the
state it had no secrets which could be hidden
from the court TO secure for it immunity in
future lawbreaking or to protect it from penal
ties for past misdeeds
Following up his victory Mr.. Taft is en-
deavOring to get that light on the workings of
the Tobacco Trust to which the Supreme Court
declared he entitled. But he is confronted
with all the obstacles which resourceful cor
poration impose. In spite of the Supreme
Court decision, the Tobacco Trust refuses to
produce all of its books. The letter press copy
nit to the grand jury is withheld first on the
ground that it is not in the physical possession
/ of its rightful custodian, but in the hands of
another man, who, apparently, awaits a sub
ppna to testify and so secure personal i'm
munity, and, second, on ethe ground that the
book contains private correspondence of the
president of the particular corporation under
investigation. The questions raised have been
reserved for consideration by Judge Lacombe.
We shall not attempt to forecast his decision.
which must turn on the construction of statutes
! of great technicality. But we note with inter
est the comments of Mr.. Taft on this theory
of the rights of corporation officers
| His picture of a corporation distributing its
! books OF record among various officials and di-
rectors, In order that the person whose duty it
! was under the bylaws TO keep them might
avoid producing them. and so that all persons
| interested might force the government to give
| them an immunity bath, is worthy of attention.
| So also is his comment the device of putting
| private letters in a corporation copybook, so
as TO protect the corporation documents in it
| from inspection. Both of these schemes are
| typical of corporation methods as they have
/ been allowed to develop at q time when cor
pOrate charter has been thought of not as q
commission OF trust to be strictly observed but
as license to responsibility. Incorporation
has meant escape from financial liability and
moral or legal personal responsibility. 1t of
| fered cover for every sort of thimble rigging
so long as both courts and public opinion were
complaisant. The operations denounced bv Mr.
Taft have long been thought permissible by
business men of at least fair standing But.
happily, a stricter code is coming to hold sway.
and once more the duties as well as the prIyi.
| leges which go with corporate charter are re-
celving attention