The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923, November 10, 1905, Page 9, Image 9
NOVEMBER 10, 1905 The Commoner. 9 "BUSINESS ETHICS" DOES NOT SPELL "ROBBERY J Among tho comments on the disclosures con cerning the management of insurance companies in New York, none is more entertaining than that made in "Public Opinion" of September 23. "Public Opinion" says that these practices "ap pear devious if not technically illegal." Then it Bays: The truth is that modern business has developed so rapidly on the practical side that our ethical code has not been able to keep paco with it. Business men have seen plainly enough the advantage of pursuing this or that policy, but since they are better trained in "doing" than in thinking, they have not correlated their newer methods with tho general conceptions of what is best for man kind as a whole. In modern business on a large scale the effects of financial operations are taken account of rather in their rela tions to companies, corporations, or general business than in their relations to individuals. Hence ethical considerations which are per fectly plain where individuals are concerned have often 'been lost sight of. There has been a confusionof thought about these ques tions. The confusion has been worse con founded by men who, having a glimmer of the true relations of things, have preferred the material bliss of continued ignorance to the personal consequences that might come from squarely facing the situation. It is time for clear thinking. Business ethics must go through a process of readjustment to new conditions. It is absurd to say as "Public Opinion" does Jn effect say that it is possible for men to be so busy that they forget to be honest, or that an increase in the volume or range of business necessarily means a decrease in the size of the business man's conscience. The practices ex posed in the insurance inquiry do not represent business; they do not represent the development of commerce. They come under the head of larceny larceny on a large scale, to be sure, but larceny nevertheless. In these insurance company transactions the "effects of financial operations?' vere taken account of "in their re lations to the individual," and the men who en gineered the deals saw to it that the money went into the pockets of the preferred individuals. These men were not indulging in "tho material bliss of continued ignorance." They had for many years exercised control over United States senators and members of the house of repre sentatives; they had exercised control over law makers, courts and executives, and in several presidential campaigns, posing as champions of the national honor and as defenders of the busi ness interests of the country, they aided very materially in pulling tho wool over tho eyes of tho majority of tho American people. They thought they were licensed to proy upon the help less people whose money was entrusted to their care, and even now, in tho face of all tho serious revelations concerning tho dishonesty of theso men, some people are greatly offended when it is suggested that they bo taken to the crim inal courts to answer for their crimes. Indeed, some object to the demand made by policyholders that Mr. McCall retire from his position as presi dent of his company, while others protest when it is suggested that Chauncoy M. Depew sur render his commission as a member of the United States senate. "Public Opinion" is mistaken if it believes that business ethics must go through a process of readjustment. There are hundreds of thou sands of successful business men all over this world today who could not be Induced under any circumstances to engage in tho dishonorable practices pursued by those valiant contributors to republican campaign funds. "Deal honestly, hurt nobody, and give every one his just due" that Is descriptive of business ethics as we were taught It at the mother's knee, as we learned it from the honest merchant in the counting room or as it is understood by the men in all vocations of life and tho thief on the highway as well as the robber in insurance cir cles, understands the rule. When an officer of the Mercantile Trust com pany, wrote to the Equitable and asked for $600,000, and then tho same man as an officer of the Equitable signed checks paying the money to the Mercantile Trust company that was not business ethics. It was one of tho worst cases of frenzied finance. When Chauncey M. Depew drew from the Equitable society a salary of twenty thousand dollars a year, ostensibly as an "attorney," but in reality as a participant in the "divide," and when that $250,000 loan was made on the Depew town lots, that was not business ethics. It was so far removed from business ethics that Mr. Depew should long ago have been driven from the United States senate. Directors of an insuranco company paid $80,000 for two old corporation ' charters. Or ganizing upon these charters two trust companies they issued stock and sold nearly one-third of this stock to their insurance company at five times its par value. That was not In line with busi ness ethics. It was plain stealing. Directors of several of these insurance com panies used their policyholders money to or ganize syndicates, and paying over these trust funds to subsidiary companies they reaped an enormous profit at the expense of the policy holders. There was no business ethics about that It was robbery on a largo scalo. Tho prcsldont of ono of these Insuranco com panies testified tbat ho had paid $100,000 of tho policyhblders' money to ono Androw Hamilton, and was unable to give any account as to tho dis position of tho money. No business ethics there. Simply, in polito terms, tho misappropriation o other people's money. Tho president of one of those companies testi fied that ho paid tho republican national com mittee In three presidential campaigns nearly $150,000. This money belonged to the. policy holders, many of whom were not in sympathy with the republican party. This unauthorized use of tho policyholders' money was not In lino with business ethics. It was characteristic of tho highwayman who requires his victim to stand and deliver. Tho president of an insuranco company paid out of his policyholders' money $320,000 for tho purpose of compensating a trust company for the loss it lind sustained In a certain speculation. Every one knows that that was not in line with business ethics. Who will say it was not plain theft. It has been shown that one of those insur ance companies used policyholders' money to en gage in enormous speculations and then paid to outsiders posing as brokers from one-half to two thirds of tho profits. No ono will seriously claim that that was in lino with business ethics, nnd few will seriously deny that it was dishonesty. Testimony before tho insurance commlttco has disclosed that accounts and annual statements of these insuranco companies havo been frequently falsified in order that the public might bo de ceived. Such falsification does not point to a necessity for an Improvement In business ethics, but suggests rather that somebody ought to bo sent to tho penitentiary. The revelations of tho iniquities which havo for many years been indulged in by these frenzied financiers are so serious that thoy call for prompt and unequivocal condemnation rather than any thing that may bo construed as an apology. Tho highwayman who covers his victim with a pistol and requires him to deliver property, the bur glar who breaks into the dwelling house to tako that which does not belong to him, tho pick pocket who sneaks the valuables of his victim these are handled without gloves. Why should any more mercy bo shown tho well-dressed rascal who robs the widows and orphans among his policyholders of money with which to build up gigantic syndicates, and then robs these widows and orphans of more money for the benefit of a political party that will shield him in his law lessness all the time pretending that he is tho protector of these helpless creatures rather thaij, the despoiler of their hard-earned savings. CONSTITUTION AND DECLARATION The policies of this nation must be con trolled by the principles upon which the nation was founded if popular government is to sur vive. Justice Matthews of the United States su preme court, delivering an opinion which has since been approvingly quoted by Justice Brewer said: "When we consider the nature and theory of our institutions of government, the prin ciples upon which they are supposed to rest and reviewthe history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. The first official action of the nation declared the foundation of the government in these words: 'We hold these truths to bo self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' While such declaration of prin ciples may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of Judical decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but ,the body and the letter, of which the former is the thought and the spirit. And it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in tne spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." The importance of linking together the Dec laration of Independence and the constitution is Bhown in recent American history. So long as we read our constitution, frame our laws and conform our executive action in accordance with the spirit of the declaration every Individual and every interest subject to United States jurisdic tion is safe. There is danger when the two are separated. The republican party has separated the con stitution from the declaration, and having weak ened the structure to that extent has not hesi tated to repudiate the constitution as it has re pudiated the declaration. Every constitutional paragraph that has conflicted with the purpose of republican leaders has been violated. The legislative powers granted exclusively to congress have repeatedly been usurped by the executive. In the face of an explicit prohibition In the con stitution an export tax has been levied, and in the arrangement of tariff duties preferences have been given to one port over another. Treaties have been undertaken by the executive alone, and without the advice of the senate. The right of trial by jury has been denied to the people of our new possessions; and although our con stitution declares that there shall be no slavery in the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction, the republican party is responsible for the agreement wherein it was provided that on territory subject to United States jurisdic tion territory over which the American flag floated slaves should have the privilege of pur chasing their freedom by "paying to tho master the usual market price." JJJ PAUL MORTON'S PHILOSOPHY We are told by Harper's Weekly that Edward Lefevre asked Paul Morton, president of tho Equitable Life Assurance society, "What is your philosophy of life?" Mr. Morton replied: "Did you ever hear the western advice, 'So live your life each day that you can at any time, look any damn man in the eyes and tell him to go to hell?' That's my philosophy of life." The ability to follow Paul Morton's philos ophy does not necessarily imply upright conduct. John A. McCall, George W. Perkins, Richard A. McCurdy, and every one of these insurance mag nates who have been converting to their own use the money of their policyholders have, at least by their conduct, giveri to their helpless victims Paul Morton's more or less eloquent ad monition. All the time they havo not only been " able to "look any man in the eyes," but they have actually pretended to have a monopoly up on the patriotism and the integrity of the coun try. Paul Morton's philosophy couched in Paul Morton's choicest language Is very "fetching;" but not every man who has Indulged In that phi losophy Is possessed of Immaculate virtue. Such philosophy is sometimes put forth for the purpose of concealing dishonest schemes already accomplished and in the hope of making possible the plans of plunder for the future. m W um&i(s i&mM&