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