« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
dred and thirty-nine (1,439) directorships quarterly or annually, chiefly, if not solely, in corporations which were sufficiently to ratify and confirm the acts of their well known to be recorded in the directory committees. Herein lies the root of the above referred to.
evil, and it is my firm belief that if this I submit that the intention of the state shall be brought distinctly to the attention in granting corporate charters was that of the courts it will be corrected, except the directors of each corporation should in cases where the original charter, or meet frequently, have full knowledge of articles of association, explicitly provide its affairs, discuss them deliberately, and for the creation of an executive committee then exercise the best judgment of the having such power. whole body. That this can be and is Do not understand me as saying that done to-day is shown in a letter recently corporate boards lack power to appoint written by President Taylor, of the Con- committees or to delegate to them power necticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, to act in particular instances, or even on from which it appears that its board meets particular classes of subjects, making full at least once a week, and more frequently reports thereon; but I do say that with when necessary, and that they have not charters worded as above, I, for one, fail delegated their powers to any committee, to see any power in the board to permabut that the board transacts all the business nently abdicate the whole or any part of themselves, sitting as a committee of the the discretionary powers vested by law whole. To which I can add my personal in them to a committee of their creation. experience in a large National Bank and in a Railroad Company, where the same sound and law-abiding practice is followed I have pointed out briefly and I trust, except that the bank directors meet twice not unkindly, some of the evils which now a week and the railroad board held only affect for ill the economy of the household eighteen meetings last year.
of the state, and of the corporations. In How, then, is the business of the other each, we, who—as breadwinners, as taxcompanies managed ? Their charters payers and as stockholders--provide the provide substantially, and in general, wherewithal, suffer because we have set literally, as follows:
others to rule over us without holding
them to that strict accountability for the “All the powers of the corporation shall be vested in a board of directors (or discharge of their trust, which the comtrustees), and shall be exercised by them Indeed, things have come to such a pass
mon law and common sense alike demand. and such officers and agents as they may that in certain quarters it is now considappoint."
ered indecorous and ill-bred for us, the It goes without saying that the officers many, to even discuss, much less to corare required to report their acts, and are rect, the shortcomings of the elect few. held to a very strict accountability; so Such was neither the theory nor the pracalso as to the individual agents. But the tice on which our forefathers ordered the practice has arisen and is very generally economy of this Republic. followed of assuming that the insertion in Without going the length of those who, such charters of the word “agents” has from motives of personal vanity or of pergiven to the board created thereby the sonal gain, are so freely preaching and power to delegate to “Executive Com- writing vain doctrine, let me ask you who mittees” of their creation, all the powers have so long stood for sound doctrine, to which the law has vested in those boards join with all ourintelligent and conservative and requires them to exercise, except on fellow countrymen in demanding sound, the rare occasions when such boards may patient and discriminating Economy. be in session. To make matters worse,
STUYVESANT FISH. such boards meet at very rare intervals, New York City.
By ELTWEED POMEROY, A.M.,
of . pets, without any noisy conven- the entire corporation lobby was arrayed tions, with scant press-notices, and against against the second passage of this amendthe silent but increasing opposition of ment, poor as it was. politicians and corporations, the Direct- In Maine, Wisconsin, Illinois, ColoLegislation movement has made steady rado, California, and some other states, progress during 1905.
amendments were defeated in the legisThe organizations through which Di- latures, but with fewer votes against them rect-Legislation is effectuating itself are than ever before. true to its democratic, decentralizing In Delaware the Single-Taxers, finding spirit. There is no highly centralized that they could not attain their chief aim, organization of its increasing adherents; very sensibly decided to work for Directno organization that one man or a small Legislation, which would attract more group of men can dominate; no organiza- people than the Single-Tax and hence be tion whose dues come from the circum- easier to gain, and also when gained ference to support the center; no organi- would be the method by which the Singlezation which develops and fosters the Tax could be brought before the people partisan spirit, the love of an organization for their acceptance or rejection. It was for itself and not for what it can do; no found that it would require six years to organization building up a hierarchy to obtain a Direct-Legislation constitutional grow into a despotism, a danger to free amendment; hence it was decided to institutions.
work for something else. An act was In the fall of 1904 the people of Mis- gotten through the legislature and signed souri defeated the almost unworkable by the governor, submitting to the people Direct-Legislation amendment submitted the question of establishing the advisory to them by the most corrupt legislature Referendum and Initiative in Delaware. that Missouri has ever known. It was This measure will be voted on next Noan exceedingly poor form of Direct-Leg- vember. islation, and it was probably well for the The great victory of 1905 for Directcause that it was defeated.
Legislation, however, was in Montana, At the same election the people of where, against the silent opposition of the Nevada adopted a very good Direct-Leg- corporations but with the ardent support islation amendment, modeled on the one of the working people, a Direct-Legislain operation in Oregon. Nevada is the tion amendment passed both houses of fourth state to embody a Direct-Legisla- the legislature and will go to a vote of tion amendment in its constitution. the people next November. This is not
The winter of 1905 saw the defeat of as good as some of the other amendments, the unsatisfactory Initiative constitutional as it requires a majority of two-fifths of amendment which had passed one Mas- the counties of the state, as well as a two
* At the request of Dr. Josiah Strong, Mr. Eltweed fifths majority in the whole state, to pass Pomeroy prepared a digest of the results of Direct- a law, but this will usually be accomLegislation work in 1905, for the forthcoming num- plished, and when it passes the people, as ber of The Social Progress Handbook for 1906. Through the courtesy of Mr. Pomeroy we are able it almost surely will, Montana will be the to give the above facts as prepared for this work. fifth state to have embodied Direct-LegLack of space compels us to omìt some passages that islation in its constitution. are not directly concerned with the progress of the movement.–Editor of THE ARENA.)
The Texas legislature has passed a curious law carrying Direct-Legislation filed in May, 1905, against a million-dolin party management. By this law, lar state expense-bill, and it will be voted whenever delegates are elected for anyon in June, 1906. The Equal Suffrage party convention, ten per cent. of the Association has filed a petition for a conparty voters of that district, by filing a stitutional amendment giving woman's petition, can secure a vote on any matter, suffrage. The People's Power League and if the majority vote for it, the delegate has filed petitions for four constitutional is pledged to that course.
amendments and an anti-pass law. The The greatest advance in Direct-Legis- first amendment gives the people the Initilation has been in municipal affairs, and ative and Referendum on all local, special in this direction the Direct-Legislation and municipal laws, and on parts of legLeague of California has been most suc- islative acts. The second gives cities cessful. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and towns exclusive power to make and Pasadena and Vallejo have Direct-Leg- amend their charters, subject only to the islation embedded in their charters, and constitution and criminal laws. The within the last two years Sacramento, San third removes restrictions in dealing with Bernardino, San Diego, Eureka and Fres- the state printing and binding. The no have been added to that honor list. fourth allows one legislature to propose The Recall has been incorporated in the constitutional amendments; it has recharters of San Bernardino, San Diego quired two in the past. These will all be and Pasadena, while Los Angeles had voted on next June. In addition, many and used it most effectively in the summer cities and towns have voted on municipalof 1905 in recalling a councilman who ownership of water-works, electric-lightdeliberately misrepresented his constitu- ing and power-plants, etc., and municipalents. The Recall was attacked in the ownership has usually won. courts, and was sustained, although later By the Rush constitutional amendment the
way in which it was used in one in- to the Colorado constitution, Denver was stance was declared improper. There secured a charter which must contain was also a minor unimportant decision Direct-Legislation, but the drawing of against the Referendum in San Diego. the form was left to a charter convention.
The people of San Francisco defeated The first one framed had very good Dia high-license Initiated proposition, but rect-Legislation provisions, but it was by such an unexpectedly small majority defeated, or rather counted out, by the that it will probably soon be submitted corporations, and a second one was drawn again.
with Direct-Legislation provisions that At the city election in Portland, Ore- were purposely made almost unusable. gon, in June, 1905, seven charter amend- The whole charter was adopted. ments were voted on; five carried and Probably the best work in popularizing two were lost. For months a telephone Direct-Legislation has been done in Illicompany tried to obtain a franchise from nois by the Referendum League of that the common council of Portland and could state. The Public Opinion Law has been not. At last it drew up a very fair fran- used with telling effect, submitting three chise, circulated an Initiative petition for questions to the people of Chicago in the it, got it signed by a sufficient number of spring of 1904, and three to the people voters, and the people voted on it and of the state in the fall of 1904. In that carried it by 13,213 to 560. This shows fall Mr. Harrison, the then mayor, taunted that when a corporation proposes a fair the League about another Referendum, franchise, the people almost unanimously and the Hearst papers secured a petition
with a large number of signatures, which In Oregon a Referendum petition was went to a vote in April, 1905. The de
mands of this petition were worded in for. This they reluctantly did on the the negative and were overwhelmingly question of exempting seven hundred voted in the negative, and at the same dolllars of house-value from taxation; time Judge Dunne was elected mayor. but when it carried both the mayor and The dominant question voted on was in the council said they would not even atregard to the granting of street-railway tempt to carry it into effect. franchises, and these votings have rapidly Among other cities that have secured educated the people and have exercised Direct-Legislation by charter amendment so strong an influence that the council are such widely separated ones as Fort has not dared to pass franchises, and it is Worth (Texas), Memphis (Tennessee), now probable that no franchise will be and Grand Rapids (Michigan). The latgranted unless the Referendum clause is ter city has a peculiarly strong and good attached.
form. Norfolk (Virginia), Lancaster There was no legislative session in Ohio (Pennsylvania) and other places have enin 1905, but an active Direct-Legislation deavored to secure Direct-Legislation, League was formed and has done much but the result is uncertain as yet. educational work and has pledged the Outside of the United States and CanDemocratic party and many legislative ada, Direct-Legislation is making slow candidates. It could not secure a pledge but steady progress.
Switzerland is confrom the Republican party, and now it tinually extending, enlarging and strengthnaturally looks to the incoming Demo- ening its use and scope. Australia and cratic legislature to redeem its pledges. New Zealand are doing a little more with The League is active, has influential it. France is extending its municipal members, and will secure an enactment But its most spectacular use was of some sort.
in Norway, when the people by a ReferThe Buffalo, New York, League has endum vote almost unanimously decided been very active. Its bills were defeated to separate from Sweden, and later chose in the legislature of 1905, but it secured a king by the divine right of a popular the passage of an advisory Referendum vote. England uses it occasionally, and and Initiative ordinance in the common in the remodeling of Russia, now so turcouncil, and after a hot legal fight it got bulent, it looks as if the local Referendum one question onto the ballot last fall. of the Russian mir might be the only subThis was the question of the municipal- stantial foundation on which the new ownership and operation of an electric- scheme of government might be laid. lighting plant, and it was carried by a large No one can be conversant with the facts majority.
of the Direct-Legislation movement withToronto has had a hot fight. The Fed- out becoming very optimistic as to the eration for Majority-Rule pledged the future of this great democratic growth. mayor and most of the council, before
ELTWEED POMEROY. their election, to submit matters petitioned East Orange, N.J.
By ARCHIBALD H. GRIMKE, A.M.
INIMO TACOS Live side by side, one dom
case the second woman be of his own race.
Neither the law nor public opinion puts N MONOGAMOUS countries where an equal value on the chastity of the
women of the two races. Female chasinant, the other subject, the single legal tity in the superior race is rated above standard, the single moral standard, yields that in the inferior race. Hence the in practice if not in theory to double stand- greater protection accorded to the woman ards in law and morals in respect to the of the first class over that accorded to the sexual question. In the ensuing con- women of the second class. The first fusion of moral ideas, of moral obliga- class has well-defined legal and moral tions, the male instinct gains in freedom rights which the men of that class are from restraints of law, of social conven- bound to respect, rights which may not tions, and reverts in consequence and be violated with impunity. Here we to that extent to a state of nature, of natu- encounter one of the greatest dangers ral marriage. The legal and moral codes attendant upon race segregation, where which regulate the relations of the males the two races are not equal before the of one race with the females of the same law, where public opinion makes and race are not applicable in regulating the enforces one law for the upper race, and relations of those self-same males with practically another law for the under race. the females of the other race. Marriage Under these circumstances a male in such a country has regard to the males member of the dominant race may seduce and females of the same race, not to those the wife of a member of the subject race, of different races. The crime of adultery or a daughter, without incurring any punor of fornication undergoes the same gross ishment except at the hands of the man modification. For in such a land the wronged by him. Such a wrongdoer one-wife idea, the one-wife institution, would not be indicted or tried for adultery has reference to individuals of the same or seduction, nor could the wronged race only, not to individuals of opposite husband or father recover from him dam
The “Thou shalt not” of the ages in a suit at law, nor yet could a baslaw, public opinion interprets to refer to tardy suit be brought by the girl against the sexual conduct of the males and fe- him with any show of success for the supmales of the same race in respect to one port of his child, were issue to be born to another, i. e., a male member of the dom- her from such illicit union.) The men inant race must limit his roving propen- of the dominant race find themselves thus sities wherever the females of his own in a situation where the law, public opinrace are concerned. (He need not under ion, provides for their exclusive possession this same law, interpreted by this same the women of their own race, and permits public opinion, curb to the same extent them at the same time to share with the those roving propensities where the fe- men of the subject race possession of the males of the other race are concerned.> women of that race. The sexual instinct He may live in licit intercourse with a of the men of the first class approaches woman of his own race, and at the same in these conditions to a state of nature in time in illicit intercourse with a woman respect to the women of the second class. of the other race, i. e., without incurring They are enabled, therefore, to select the pains and penalties made by the state, wives from the superior race, and misby society, against such an offence, in tresses from the inferior one. The natu