New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-02-08
UILLING TO SUBMIT
TO MILTON.
Gary Says Federal Charter 10
III Right if Practicable
Perkins U'elcOmes 1t.

chairman of its board of directors. vas
asked Yesterday to comment on tn-
Wickersham bill and replied;
Il have not carefully read the pro-
posed federal incorporation bill and am
not qualified to discuss it I have no oo-
lection TO stating that if and when tn'
Congress of the United states passes
law on the subject we shall cheerfCliy
and promptly accept it and incorpOrats
under it's provisions. provided the sans
IS practicable
George ". Perkins, OF ]. P Morgan q
Co. said last night that he had not read
the bill. but that he believed absolutely
in national incorporation and super
vision He called attention TO an ad-
dress he delivered at Columbia Univer-
sity on February .. 1905. just two years
age He said hs had not changed MIS-
opinion as there expressed. His subject
at the time was Corporations in Mod
eru Business"
In that address he said;
There is scarcely a corporation man
aser of to-day who is alive to his re-
sDonsibilities who would not welcorn-
supervision could he but feel that ~
would come from the national govern
rnent acting through an intelligent ana
fair-nfnded official: but 70 be faced with
the requirement TO report to and De su-
pervised and regulated by forty or ftt[
governments with varying ideas ana
laws. of course suggests difficulties that
are almost insurmountable obstacles
Nrr. Perkins. in referring to the forty
or fifty governments" meant state su-
pervision.
He continued.
The criticism is often made that rhls
national supervisory would amount 70
bringing business into politics. That de-
pends If we had at Washington rail-
road board of control. and that board
were composed of practical railroad men
would not membership in such board
come gradually to be the goal Of railroad
men? And does any one for moment
think that if such board were com
posed of practical railroad men 1t would
be especially partial to the railroad IN
terests? Certainly not.
WOULD BE IMPARTIAL
Once on such board a man could ROT
fail 10 recognize the great responsibility
and honor of the office and administer II
for the best interests of the public ana
of the railroads at one and the sam
time Thus the business man Woul1
merge into the public official, no longer
controlled BY the mere business view.
and would act the part OF statesman
to the Improvement of governEental ad-
ninistratiOn and not TO the lowering OF
ITS level
This kind of expert. high-minded su-
pervision would not be opposed by thA
business interests of the country. Nhat
thev dread is unintelligent, inexperienced
administration. To such rational su
perviSion may we not look forWar0 t'
as a result of the sober second thought
IpClEl9tOTS-OI
their calming down from the bitter de-
nunciation of corporations which has
been the prevailing Outcry for soma
years?
The spirit of cooperation IL upon u=
1t must of necessity be the next great
form of business development and prog
ress.
There was A hesitancy on the part Of
corporation lawyers 70 discuss the bill
in detaaiI before it's submission to Con-
gress and before they had had more
:inc to study it, This was Edward "
Shepard's reason for limiting his re-
marks on the subject to the observa-
tion:
If the federal government would at
tand 70 it's own business and allow the
states to attend TO theirs, We should
be better off. I don't believe in the fed
eral governments Incorporating COM
panies for general business
WANTS A STRICTER LAW
Another prominent corporation lawyer.
who did not care 10 be quoted, was will
ing TO discuss the measure at greater
length He is strongly in favor Of fed
eraI Incorporation. but wants the pro-
visions of any law on the subject stTtcter
IT. some respects than in the Wickersharn
bill. so that. as he expressed it, "the So
Cryritfes OF a corporation with a national
stamp on il shall be as honest in their
vsy as national bank note is in its
vay"
He thought the large corporations
would welcome federal Incorporation -
protect them from the contradictory and
conflicting regulations imposed by the
different states. but he saw in the Wick
ersham bill. as drawn. loopholes for the
inclusion of dishonest concerns The
greatest of these IoophoIes. he considered.
was the failure Of the bill 70 demand the
fling of statements by the corporations
IN a public office where they could be
scrutinized by any one in the mood for
If He did not think the supervision OF
the Bureau of Coroprations sufficient
safeguard against manipulation to the
detriment of the stockholders
Another detail ne objected 70 was the
provision compelling the appointment OF
arpraisers to determine the value Of
property being bought by an issue of
stock. Too great a temptation 10
bribery and graft" he commented
What they ought to insure Is that in
case any property Is exchanged for stock
al par and is found to fall short In value
those receiving the stock shall make Up
the difference in cash. There would be
mighty little water with such a clause
operative But, as proposed. the say so
of the appraisers. no matter how venaI
they might be. would be the last word
in the case and the stockholders would
have no redress.
The clause in the bill forbddinx any
corporation under It's provisions 20 hol6
stock in another corporation would work
hardship, this lawyer said. and should
be changed TO forbid any corporation or