The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1935-02-21

believe that we %%SzS$
must have COM A<ISzN4z'-
petition if the Lewis Haney
system of individual initiative is
70 endure. believe that some
companies are much too big FOL
efficiency. I believe that financial
responsibility and manipulation
must be stamped out.
It does not follow, however,
that the holding company form
or organization is bad in itself,
nor that all holding companies
should be destroyed. There is
probably just as much manipu-
lation and financial abuse in
businesses which are not hold
ing companies as there is in
holding companies.
1t does not follow that all big
corporations are bad, nor that
all big business should be des-
troyed. I am sure that there
is as much badness to be found
among little companies as among
big ones.
It is a plain fact that the hold
ing company may be good, and
that the big company may be
good.
OF course, do not mean to
say that nothing can be done or
should be done about the abuses
practiced by business organiza"
tons which are holding compan-
Aes or big corporations. What I
do say is that it is sheer folly
to destroy the good along with
the bad. What is needed is to
cut out the bad features, and to
leave the good alone.
The wise thing to do is Cd to
determine exactly what the evils
: are, and their exact nature and
: interrelationS. Then CD ascer-
tain the definite and precise
:: causes of these evils. 90 Then
!. eliminate the causes, and supple
d: ment that operation by specific
penalties laid upon the bad oper-
:: ations.
: : The evil is not the holding
I company in itself. The evil is
: in the abuse of that form of
7 organization. 1t has been used
!. for financial manipulation and
: OVercapitalizatiOn, for secret and
devious control in violation of
= antitrust laws, and for milk
: ing" subsidiary companies. All
right; the remedy is to remove
the possibility of such abuses.
, This can be done without de-
GtrOying all holding companies.
The evil of "bigness" in bust
ness, does not lie in bigness it.
self, but in what the big corpo
ration does. For example, big
ness may go so far as to develop
into monopoly. Probably the
worst feature is that it sometimes
begets inefficiency and waste
But the remedy is not to penalize
all bigness. The remedy is to
insist upon fair but full compe
tition.
Even if we were unwisely tc
insist upon destroying all hold
ing companies, there is simply nc
sense in picking out utility hold
ing companies as being the only
ones to attack. The idea of de-
fstroying all holding companies is
bad; but to destroy them in only
. this one industry is worse.
Neither is there much sense ir
''picking on" those utility holding
companies which have subsidiaries
scattered in different geographical.
areas.
Nor is there sense in using taxa
lion as the means of destroying
them.
If all holding companies are
necessarily bad, then all holding
companies should be prohibited.
That would be the only sensible
and straightforward way. If the
thing Is bad, why fiddle around
with discriminating back.dOOr at.
&ackS!
/ Similarly, if "bigneSs" is bad
land If you can define what
"bigneSS" meanSD, why not di.
Eectly prohibit being "big"?
I will add that after examining
this utility holding company bill
I consider it utterly crude, anc
little short of ridiculous-as fol
example. its absurd attempt to ar
que that any use of the mail.
makes a business Interstate.
1t shows how the New Dealer!
are bent upon reducing all bust
ness to centralized Federal con
troll.
R.R WY y