OCR Text |
Show CORPORATION CONTRIBUTION. The "monologue" of Alton Parker over the statement of Perkins that a heavy contribution was paid by the New York Life to the Republican campaign fund last year, will not avail very much. Probably the distilleries of Kentucky gave quite as much for Mr. Parker's campaign, and it will always al-ways be so. If the law should ever inhibit the corporations from such contributions, then the stockholders would evade the law, and under some other device meet the assessment. Then there are two sides to the question. The directors act for the stockholders. That is, they do if they are honest. Well, imagine a corporation corpora-tion existing in Massachusetts, for instance, engaged en-gaged in the manufacture of woolen goods, employing em-ploying thousands of men and with a year's stock of wool on hand. Imagine a presidential election on, and that the usual demand is in the Democratic Demo-cratic platform for a tariff for revenue only. Of course that corporation would exert all its influence in-fluence to defeat the Democratic ticket, would it not? If not coercing its employees, it surely would hold out to them all that their continued steady wages would depend upon a Democratic defeat. As wealthy men are expected to contribute con-tribute to presidential campaigns, it would be legitimate for the directors of that corporation to contribute, would it not? Now to the moral point. Would it not be justifiable from a business standpoint stand-point for those- directors to reason that inasmuch as their corporation was in imminent danger of being be-ing grievously injured, if not ruined, and money was to be sacrificed to try and turn aside the impending im-pending loss, it would be but fair for every stockholder stock-holder to bear his loss? But Judge Parker says that is to swell a corruption cor-ruption fund, the most vicious in the world, for it is meant to tamper with a free ballot. It strikes us that the Judge mistakes the place to locate the guilt. The legitimate cost of a presidential election elec-tion is very great. The printing, the payments to speakers, the traveling expenses, clerks, stamps, newspapers the aggregate is something immense. ' flH If beyond that money is spent to corrupt voters, j 'flflj then the agents engaged in that work are the ni guilty ones, the ones to be punished. A man has ! HI a right to contribute to an election fund. A man's j 'fl agent should treat his employer's interests as his flfl own. Judge Parker's idea is good from the can- I. ' LLm didate's high moral standpoint, but the world's M flfl verdict will be that it is not business. J flfl |