Lower coast gazette., 1909-03-20

every function of civilized life. The old theory of the inability Of
a corporation to commit a crime, was based upon the fact that te
were made up Of Stockholders, each of whom would
be innocent Of any criminal act in which the management might
engage, their knowledge of the corporation being restricted t." the
conditions of the charter under which they became stock-E(ld rs.
The invasion of the rights of the masses by the predatory rch,
has led the rich corporations generally to concur with any such
decisions as made them criminally liable, and wherein the punish
ment was manifested in a tine, apparently the only way TO ieach
the actual corporation. The New York Central paid. or is willing
to pay it's fine of one-hundred and eght-thousand dollars, IN &C.
cordance with the decision Of February 23rd against it. and the
sugar trust and the beef trust have seemed disposed to meet the
casein the same way, The tWenty-nlne millions OF dollars OF hhe
inflicted upon the Standard Oil Company, by Judge Lands, seems
to have led these great corporators in that case at least, to pleao
that the innocent stock: holders of the company can not be mulcted
in any such enormous fine, as it would be taking their property
from them without due process Of law, they never having Wiling
ly consented to hold stock in a corporation which was permitted
by its charter to commit crimes, and the management OF any cor
poration has no right to go beyond the powers granted 10 Ve COR
poration in its charter.
The good odfashioned common law idea was that the execu-
tive officer of a corporation had no right to do anything excepting
what he was especially authorized to do by directors, or by the au-
thorized direction of an executive committee OF the directors.
These restrictions threw the responsibility on the party to whom
it belonged, and if any illegal action is done it is done by the mdl-
vidual or by the joint action of several individuals, andn not by the
stock holders through any corporate action, as was held in the New
York Central and sugar trust cases.
1t would seem very queer that any effort Of the common law
to protect the average man and allow a number of men with linn
tied capital to combine their capital in order to erect factories OF
engage in mercantile business in competition with large individual
capital or with aggregations Of capital that the law should permit
the building up under it's own administration a .Frankenstein with
greater power than its creator, We adhere to the old view that
corporation can commit no crime; that if a crime be committed i
is committed by the individual actually engaged in the transaction
orby the party directing this action and thus rising step by stel
along the executive line until the actual criminal, who transcend
the organic law of the corporation, is found. This is the part,
who commits the crime, and who should be held criminaly respon
sble for his action even if it leads to personal imprisonment. l
seems simply absurd to construe the law as now, and to permit tn
predatory corporations to commit positive crimes to be punishe
in a communication style by a fine, and not by the personal imprson
ment that would attach to the same crime if committed in an indi
vdual capacity. Let us go back to the old construction of the law
and not accept the modern construction which bids fair to lead t
revolution.