Gilpin observer., 1914-01-22

by which both the public mind ant
the managers Of great business under
takings should be guided, and az ar
instrumentaltty for doing justice tE
business where the process Of the
courts or the natural forces Of correo
tion outside the courts are inadequate
to adjust the remedy to the wrong II
q way that will meet all the equities
and circumstances Of the case.
Producing industries, for example
which have passed the point up tc
which combination may be consistent
with the public interest and the free
dom Of trade, cannot always be dis
sected into their component units az
readily as railroad companies or sim
liar organizations can be.
Their dissolution by ordinary legal
process may oftentimes involve finan-
cial consequences likely to overwhelm
the security market and bring on 1t
breakdown and confusion. There
ought to be an administrative commits
sion capable of directing and shaping
such corrective processes. not only in
aid Of the courts, but also by inde-
pendent suggestion, If necessary.
Inasmuch as our object and the
spirit of our action in these matters
Is to meet business half way in its
processes Of self-correction and dis
turb its legitimate course as little as
possible, we ought to see to it, and the
judgment of practical and sagacious
men of affairs everywhere would ap-
plaud US If we did see to it, that PEN
alties and punishments should fall,
not on business itself, to its confusion
and interruption, but on the individ-
uals who use the instrumentalities Of
business to do things which public pol
icy and sound business practice con-
denim.
Every act OF business is done at the
command or on the initiative of some
ascertainable person or group of per-
sons.
These should be held individually
responsible and the punishment
should fall on them, not on the busi-
ness organization of which they made
illegal use.
1t should be one of the main OBJ
jects Of our legislation to divest such
persons of their corporate cloak and
deal with them as with those who do
not represent their corporations, but
merely by deliberate intention break
the law.
THE business men the country
through would, am sure, applaud us
If we were to take effectual steps to
see that the officers and directors Of
great business bodies were prevented
from bringing them and the business
of the country into disrepute and
danger.
Other questions remain which will
need very thoughtful and practical
treatment. Enterprises, in these mod
ern days of great individual fortunes,
are oftentimes interlocked, not by be-
ing under the control of the same d.
rectors but by the fact that the great
er part of their corporate stock Is
owned by single person or group of
persons who are in some way inti-
mately related in interest. We are
agreed, / take it, that holding compa-
MES should be prohibited. but what of
the controlling private ownership of
individual or actually cooperative
groups of individuals?
Shall the private owners of capital
stock be suffered to be themselves in
effect holding companies?
We don't wish, l suppose, to for
bid the purchase of stocks by any per-
son who pleases to buy them in such
quantities as he can afford, or in any
way arbitrarily to limit the sale of
stocks to bona fide purchasers. Shall
we require the owners of stock, when
their voting power in several compa.
nies, which ought to be independent of
one another, would constitute actual
control. to make election in which of
them they will exercise their right to
vote? This question l venture for
your consideration.
There is another matter in which
imperative considerations of justice
and fair play suggest thoughtful rem
edial action. Not only dc many of the
combinations effected or sought to be
effected in the industrial world work
an injustice on the public in general;
they also directly and seriously injure
the individuals who are put out of
business in one way or another by the
many dislodging and exterminating
forces of combination.
hope that we shall agree in giving
private individuals who claim to have
been injured by these processes the
right to found their suits for redress
on the facts and judgments proved and
entered in suits by the government
where the government has on its own
initiative sued the combinations com.
planned Of and won its suit, and that
the statute of limitations shall be suf.
fered to run against such litigants
only from the date of the conclusion
OF the governments action.
1t is not fair that the private liti
CANT should be obliged to set up and
establish again the facts which the
gOypru nout hac nrCvod rYn ~c--1x - .