FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177  
178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   >>   >|  
wise; to-day they are desirous of such regulation under Federal charters, for the purpose of escaping the more multifarious and radical law-making of the forty-six different States. Before the Industrial Commission in 1897-1900, all the heads of the great "trusts"--Rockefeller, Archbold, Havemeyer--testified in favor of Federal incorporation; almost all other witnesses, except one or two New York or New Jersey corporation lawyers, against it. In the article in the _Harvard Law Review_, above referred to, the writer suggested that the evil might be cured by compelling trusts to organize as corporations, thereby bringing them under the regulation and control that the State exercises over corporations. That has come to pass, but the remedy has not seemed adequate. In the early Sugar Trust case, the New York Supreme Court decided that combinations to sell through a common agent, thereby, of course, fixing the price, with other common devices for controlling the market and preventing competition, were illegal at the common law; and also that a corporation which, in order to bring about such a combination, put all its stock in the hands of trustees or a holding company, thereby forfeited its charter, the only result of which decision was to drive the Sugar Trust from its New York charters to a legal organization in the State of New Jersey. It is noteworthy that one or two of the most obvious remedies for this condition of things have never been employed, possibly because they would be too effective. That is to say, there might be legislation that a corporation should not act out of the State chartering it--that a New Jersey corporation, holding no property and doing no business in New Jersey, should not be used to carry on business in New York. We also might have legislated, going back to the strict principles of the common law, to forbid any corporation, any artificial body, from holding shares in another corporation. It is doubtful, to-day, whether this can be done under the common law, and the authors of the Massachusetts corporation law refused expressly to provide for it; on the other hand the proposed Federal Incorporation Act expressly validates it. We do, however, begin to see some legislation on this line of approach, notably in the case of competing companies, several Western States at least having statutes forbidding a corporation from holding stock in such companies; and it was one of the recommendations of Presi
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177  
178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

corporation

 

common

 

Jersey

 

holding

 

Federal

 

corporations

 
legislation
 

business

 

charters

 

expressly


companies
 

trusts

 

regulation

 

States

 

possibly

 

notably

 

employed

 

competing

 
effective
 

things


remedies

 
recommendations
 

forbidding

 

result

 

decision

 
organization
 

statutes

 
obvious
 

approach

 

Western


noteworthy

 

condition

 

forbid

 

artificial

 

refused

 

principles

 

strict

 
provide
 

shares

 

authors


Massachusetts
 
doubtful
 

legislated

 
property
 
chartering
 
Incorporation
 

proposed

 

validates

 

witnesses

 

lawyers