New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-10-07

firm. the business has to be wound up 1t Is
great business convenience to have a business
organiza ton which is not dissolved by the dc@tn
of any one of its members.
ADVANTAGES OF CORPORATIONS.
Then. in the ordinary partnership man is
liable for all the debts of the concern. All the
liabilities of the concern his personal la
bilities. In the of a corporation II the
stock has been properly issued and is pr srly
paid UP, and the corporation obeys the Jaw,
there IS no individual liability; the liability is
that of the corporation. Now. those are bust
ness advantages. and every man that ne .
knows that 1t is a most hollow pretenc X
in a condemnatory fashion of corpora tsons.
Does my opponent disbelieve in corporations?
Oh no. not ct ALL Why. then, does he select
the word corporation" watchword? Why.
then without attempting to point out particular
abuses or at least in his censures discriminating
that which Is good from that which is evil?
Why does he the word corporation with
the effort TO make It a stigma, to aff1x 1t as
libel, to deal with IL as suggestion OF corrup.
tion of enormities Of something which SHOULD
call down upon anything TO which 1t is affixed
the lust condemnation Of his fellow men? Why?
Because he is honest? No. Because he wants
office. Pooling people with a name!
WHEN MR. HEARST WAS SUED.
Now, / have got a big volume here 1t has
something TO do with The Journal'-yes.
Now. that is a legal record. It is a record Oh
a case In our courts 1t is a record OF case
that arose and tried in WestoheSter county.
that came before the Appellate Division. sitting
young married woman who was riding on her
wheel. and was run over by a delivery wagon
Of 1.-The New York Journal"
Now. Won pick up -1The New York Evening
journal" and you viii see the words, Tho New
York Evening Journal. William Ranooiph
Would you not suppose that he owned it7
Would you not suppose he was the proprietor
Of IT?
docs he not want the credit of III
But ne does not want the liability OF It.
q 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 whose name was at the
head of this paper and made him the defendant
in her suit: and he came into court by his at
torney, who verified the answer which stateo rs
'@rhe defendant denies that on the 14th day of
May. 1897, he vas the owner or publisher or
newspaper, or that in or about the business OF
distributing or transporting such newspaper ne
employed a certain vehicle, cart or wagon. or
certain horses. drivers or other persons"
And they went TO court to try their case, ana
they tried il before Judge Keogh, and the plain
tiff put in her evidence and the defendant said,
'Oh. no, do not own that paper DO not own
that wagon. That man was not my employe.
The paper was owned and the wagon was
owned and the was employed by cor
poration."
A CORPORATION EDITOR
His point was that he was corporation
Now. the plaintiff said well, this corpora
ton. which say owns this wagon and en-
ploys this driver, was not a bona f1de corpora
escape personal liability"
There was a law at that time, which we have
substantially to-day, requiring stock corpora
tions to make reports 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 ex-
coed. showing the amount Of the assets and the
amount which they at least equalled, showing
the names Of the stockholders; and the statute
provided that the report should be signed by
majority Of the directors and verified by the
oath of the president or vice-president and
the Secretary Of State and IN the Office of the
county clerk Of the county where the principal
business may be located. And the plaintin said:
Such reports have not been filed; there has
been attempt to comply with the law and this
IS not an ordinary straight corporaton-it is a
device"
And Judge Keogh said he would leave that
question to the jury, and in the charge of the
Judge TO the jury this is what he said in part,
bearing upon that question:
Now, the plaintiff claims that though this
property was in form and In name owned by
the Morning Journal Association Corporation,
though property similar 10 it was transferred to
the Star Company. yet these transfers We're not
actual transfers; that the corporation so to
speak was empty shell. that 1t trans
fer only in form: that Mr.. Hearst, the defendant
was at the inception the capitalist; that he was
the original owner of the property; ana that ne
still retains ownership Notwithstanding the form
which had been gone through in apparently
transferring the property from one 70 the other;
In other words, the plaintiff claims that the ap-
pearances, however legal, that the Star Com
many was the EMPLOYER of this driver on the day
of the accident and the Of the horse and
wagon the appearances DO not represent the
true facts. and that the real and actual owner
Is Mr. Hearst. That question Is left 10 you as
G question OF fact To decide
''Was there an actual corporation formed? Was
a corporation formed in form and in substance
20 conduct this business and was that the in
tention of forming the corporation? Was the
property in fact transferred this company?
Did il become the of It, and while the
Journal Association was the owner did il actu-
ally and in good faith transfer the property and
ownership TO the Star Company, and was the
Star Company in May. 1897. when the accident
occurred. the owner?"
Ths left 10 the jury, and the furry found