The Washington times., 1935-06-22

panleS, an at
Lewis Haney tempt would be
made to destroy other holding
companies. Otherwise, discrim
inatory situation would exist. II
would not make sense.
This thought is emphasized by
the fact that the holding com,
pany," as such, is not necessarily
a bad institution. Senator Norris,
himself, has apparently been will
! ing to accept the simpler forms Of
this sort of organization. Many
holding companies have done use
full work.
The holding company can be
regulated. Indeed the strict en-
forcement of corporation Law
would do away with most Of tho
abuses, and the S. E. C. adds mucl
protection.
Unless am much mistaken,
majority of the people in thi'
country feel that there is no ade-
quate reason for causing the loss
of millions of dollars to hundreds
of thousands of small investors
which the utility bill threatens.
All this is so clear, that Con-
gresham have been heSitant to
vote for the thing. Mr.. Roosevelt
had to pound the table and rush
must" memorandum to the
floor, in order to force the bill
through the Senate.
A good many Congressman con
slider the bill unconstitutional, anc
the House Interstate Commerce
Committee has been opposed t:
the death sentence" One men
Der publicly stated his objectio
to Furnishing utility investors b.
compulsory dissolution of con
panies into which they have PIT
their life savings.
Proposals to apply a n1oderat
tax to intercompany payments
and to abolish consolidated" in
come tax returns, have been OF
fered as substitutes for destrut
ton.
In fact, even the casual observe.
can see that Congress would never
vote for the utility bill were it
not for Cd the whip-cracking tao
tics of Mr.. Roosevelt, and for (2)
the pressure he can bring by
withholding funds and patronage
for the congressional districts.
Why, then, the insiStence by
the President? Aside from his
well known personal animuS con-
corning utility companies, I think
there is the idea Of ultimately
breaking up big business. After
the utility holding companies,
the industrial holding companies,
and then all the very big corpo-
rations.
1 can see some reason for
seeking to restore smaller
business units-in fact it is
within limits, desirable. 1t
could help to restore competl'
ton, and so preserve the good
in Capitalism"
But if that be the reason, I
would frankly say so. Then
would work toward that specific
end by open means. I would
not merely attack holding COM
panies," and certainly not utility
holding companies, alone.
Especially is it important to
see that mere bigness is not the
point. The point lies in CD in
efficiency. and in CD monopoly.
It is the inefficiency that so
often exists in the overgrown bust
ness organization which we should
seek to eliminate-the waste and
bureaucracy in business.
It is the monopoly, whether
through big business or collision
among small businesses, that pre-
vents competition from wedding
out the unfit and giving the con.
SumerS low prices.
What the public wants is, not
changes in the mere form or size
of corporations, but standards of
efficiency and low unit costs Of
production. Then it wants COM
petition to make low costs ef-
fective in low prices.
Merely destroying holding com
panieS gives neither.
And remember, the worst case:
on inefficiency and monopoly arr
always found in government blu
reaucracy,