certain of them, were believed to control certain railroads. Given unlimited consolidation of railroads-as their capital must exceed that of the industrial trusts-there seems little to be feared.

On the contrary, as the rate making power becomes centered in fewer hands, the men wielding it necessarily become more conservative and realize that the vastness of the interests committed to their care requires them to stand for law and equal justice to all. Railroad property is in its nature so scattered as to require the constant protection of the law, day and night, to such an extent as to make its managers and owners more dependent on just government than are any others. This fact is now very generally appreciated.

In thus considering certain questions which have come within the administration of the Illinois Central Railroad Company I express my personal views solely, and my statements are not intended, and must not be taken, as binding the corporation which I serve. All the powers of that corporation are, by law, vested in its board of directors, and they have not been consulted in respect to these statements, much less have they authorized me to make them.

A recess was taken at 1 o'clock until 3 o'clock.

AFTERNOON SESSION, SEPTEMBER 16.

MEETING OF COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS.

When it became known that it was the desire of William Jennings Bryan to present resolutions to the committee, and had requested that no report be made until he was given a hearing, quite a change was wrought in the situation. Many who had opposed reporting resolutions promptly advocated their introduction, and it looked at one time, Friday afternoon, as though the New York and Nebraska delegations would be able to agree on the substance of resolutions. Saturday morning Chairman Luce assembled the committee, at the conclusion of Mr. Bryan's address; but, by this time, the idea spread that resolutions could not be passed without party politics getting into the question and marring the good effects of the conference. Furthermore it was felt

that the adoption of resolutions would not enhance the influence of the conference upon the public mind.

The members at noon, and after long debate, reaffirmed its decision of the preceding day, recommending that no resolution expressing the views of the convention on the trust question be adopted. This conclusion was reached with a view of keeping politics out of the conference, and in the interests of harmony. After Chairman Luce had rapped for order Attorney-General Gaither, of Maryland, presented an order giving all delegates the privilege of submitting resolutions to the committee without being read or debated in the convention, with the understanding that all such documents were to be printed in the official proceedings. J. C. Hanley spoke in support of the suggestion. Delegate Dowe, of New York, expressed the opinion that no resolution should be passed at the conference. S. H. Greeley, of Chicago, followed and asserted it would be impossible to frame a resolution that would meet the approval of the entire body. He thought the committee should abide by its original decision. Edward Rosewater, of Nebraska, said that if a resolution were to be passed it should be intelligent and tangible. He did not want the conference to make itself ridiculous by trying to express its views in generalities. E. C. Crowe, of Missouri, objected to the Gaither order. He thought it would serve no good purpose and certainly would not accurately reflect the sentiments of the gathering, for the reason that many delegates would not avail themselves of the opportunity to have resolutions published in the proceedings. Edward Keasbey, chairman of the sub-committee of five. said he had talked with Mr. Bryan on the subject, and that Mr. Bryan, after reflection, had withdrawn the resolution he had prepared, and had advised that the conference take no action. along that line.

It was noticeable all through the contest over resolutions that neither political nor trust lines were drawn. This is evident by a glance over the following names of some of the delegates who took pronounced positions.

Chairman Howe called the conference to order at 3 o'clock and appointed the following committee on finance and publication:

A. C. Bartlett, Ill.

R. D. Sutherland, Neb.

Thomas M. Osborne, N. Y.

William Dudley Foulke, Ind.

T. B. Walker, Minn.

EX-OFFICIO:

Franklin H. Head, Ill.
Ralph M. Easley, Ill.

George E. Clark, of Iowa, submitted the following:

Resolved, That all addresses prepared for delivery at this meeting and crowded out for lack of opportunity may be filed with the secretary, and thereby become a part of the official records of the proceedings, and as such entitled to publication, subject only to the same revision as addresses actually delivered. The resolution was adopted by unanimous vote.

The chair then announced that the final session would be devoted to an open debate consisting of five-minute talks. He called upon Gen. T. S. Sinith, of Texas, who explained the workings of the anti-trust law in his state.

T. S. SMITH.

Attorney-General of Texas.

Before I came to this conference I arrived at the conclusion that in order to remedy the wrong and protect the right of the people and the corporations, it was necessary to have not only state legislation, but also national legislation along these lines.

I take the position that no corporation can do business in an

other state without the consent of that state. The Federal government cannot give a corporation the right to do business in a sovereign state without the consent of that state. It is only by comity between states that a corporation chartered in one state can do business in another.

The courts have decided that in forming corporations, they can only be formed by the association of individuals, and that one corporation cannot be formed by another corporation. So far as the Texas anti-trust law is concerned, we do not expect to confiscate anybody's property. We say to you: "You may come to Texas and transact any business, but it must be a legal business and open to competition, and that restriction bears alike upon individuals, partnership and corporations."

JAMES B. DILL.

North American Trust Company.

James B. Dill, of New York, an authority on the New Jersey law and one of its framers, said in part:

In the major part of the sentiment expressed here, I, as a corporation lawyer, agree with the speakers. I agree with what has been said by the labor organizations, that that corporation which fails to devote its earnings, first to the increase of wages, will eventually go to pieces. I cannot agree with Mr. Cockran that it makes not much difference how much you capitalize a corporation, provided you make it public. A corporation that issues a certificate of stock which says on the face of it that it represents $100, when these men know it does not represent $100, misrepresents the facts and should not and will not succeed. It makes a difference to the man who gets stock on that certificate, believing he is getting $100 worth. One of the greatest evils of the day is overcapitalization.

I agree with the proposition laid down by the honorable attorney-general of the state of Texas, and I say to you that New Jersey has been as much misunderstood in Texas, as Texas has been misunderstood in New Jersey. The secretary of state of New Jersey is obliged to take and place on file any charter which is properly presented, and it has been the abuse of the New Jersey law, and not the use of it, which has brought New Jersey into disrepute.

In speaking of honest combinations for business, I want to point out two dangers which are likely to arise: the first is over

capitalization, and in the second place concealment. If, instead of providing for the punishment of trusts, after being organized, you will provide for the punishment of the man that promotes them, you will kill the eggs in the nest before they are hatched.

I would simply provide for the English statute in this country -that any article advertising the stock of a corporation, or any prospectus issued in regard to the stock of a corporation, wherein a sum of money is mentioned as the subscribed capital, shall truly state the amount of money actually paid and subscribed as capital of the corporation. I would pass the English law, which is that every holder of stock, and every person through whose hands it may have passed, shall be deemed to hold that stock, subject to the payment in full in cash, unless the stock is issued, together with a contract showing all the conditions of the issue of that stock, which shall be filed in every state where the company does business. Then everybody would find out in regard to it.

The effect of these meetings here, whatever resolutions are passed to-day, I believe will check these dishonest combinations, because it will show that men are still living who go about ready to prick the bubbles of sham and fraud wherever they are found.

LAURENCE GRONLUND.

Socialist, Editorial Staff New York Journal. (Since deceased.)

We mean legitimate, sound trusts, not fraudulent concerns, such, for instance, where smooth scoundrels sell to gullible people millions worth of worthless common stock, which they know will never produce a dividend. There are plenty of means and of laws to take care of this class. The legitimate trusts are either associations of capital-and to these, department stores belong or unions of labor. We shall deal with both, though it is the former alone that creates difficulties for us.

Let us at the start understand that it is impossible to crush out either kind of trusts. The politicians who propose that remedy are either supremely ignorant or downright demagogues. In order to find out how to deal with trusts of capital, we must understand their origin.

They are not the outcome of "prohibitive" or other tariffs; neither are they the products of railroad discriminations, though they often are considerably assisted thereby. They are economic necessities, due to our complex civilization. Our commercial and industrial affairs have shown during the last hundred years an ever accelerating tendency to larger schemes, more elaborate or