the bill voices a great deal of care and skill in the preparation of it, and have gone through it with some care, but I cannot say that I have made an exhaustive examination of it for the reason that it does not follow or pretend to follow the order of the present bill and one is unable to see whether the contents of the present law or certain provisions of it are in the new one, unless you go over it section by section and write down what you consider is important.

There is one suggestion that occurs to me in reference to this committee. I think nobody will question the ability, the integrity or the motives of the members of the committee that have prepared this bill, and I think they are entitled to a great deal of commendation and approbation for having, without any consideration, prepared a bill that shows as much labor and study as this one. Yet you will notice that all the members of that committee come from the city of Chicago. Now it is a well known fact

MR. POWERS: Pardon me, Judge Scofield, of Carthage, was on the committee, but declined to act because of business out there.

MR. VELDE: The report is not signed by him. I am going simply by the names that are signed to the report.

MR. POWERS: You are right, the parties who did the work are in Chicago.

MR. VELDE: So the members of the committee that signed this report all come from the city of Chicago, and I say environment, to a large extent, makes the man. These large corporations center in the large cities, when they come to the large cities they bring new business to the large cities, and, incidentally, a great deal more law business, and I do not blame any large city lawyer from being in favor of removing all restrictions from corporations so far as possible. But I believe the country lawyer, and I understand in this state that includes all the lawyers that do not live in Chicago, to a large extent, are not in favor of the provisions of this bill. I believe a great many citizens in this state are still less in favor of it than the average country

lawyer. So my suggestion would be if a committee is appointed again by this Association to take this matter up there should be representatives upon that committee outside of the city of Chicago, what I would call country lawyers, so that it may have a discussion from both sides before it is brought up in the legislature.

I have another suggestion, and that is this: This matter, when it comes up to the legislature, comes as a proposition from this Association and with the endorsement of the Association. It seems to me there ought to be notice of some kind served upon the members of the Association that the report has been prepared and has been submitted to the legislature; not necessarily a copy of the bill because that might be too expensive, but something in the way of a notice to the secretary that this committee has reported and that the result of its deliberations has been presented to the house as House Bill so and so, or Senate Bill number so and so. While this has gone to the legislature apparently with the sanction and approval of this Association, yet it now appears that there are members here that are opposed to some of the very vital clauses and provisions of this bill.

There are a number of points that I noticed about our present law that are not included in the new one, and some very vital ones in the new law that are not in the old one.

Suffice it to say that so far as I have been able to see this law absolutely repeals all the corporation laws relative to corporations for profit, with the exception of the law relating to the consolidation of the Chicago gas companies, (laughter and applause), the law relating to the loaning of money and the enforcement of collections, that is by foreign investment companies, and the provisions of the criminal code; that portion of the criminal code which provides for annual reports to the secretary of state, that I notice is repealed by this law. MR. POWERS: The affidavit, and the dollar.

MR. VELDE: The affidavit and the dollar is omitted. Now there is one thing that struck me as peculiar in the very first

clause of this law, that is the limitation that certain corporations that are engaged in banking, insurance, real estate brokerage; the old law has it, that of real estate, with a comma after it, and then brokerage. But those exceptions to the operation of this law are limited, as I read that law, to foreign corporations. I find nothing in this law that limits its operation or exempts from its operation banking corporations or insurance corporations or real estate brokerage corporations.

Another thing: While it has been stated that the books of account of a corporation are open to the inspection of the stockholders, the only portion of the law that I have been able to find that refers to that is the section that refers to the stock and the transfer ledgers of the company, those are open to inspection and penalties are provided in case that is not complied with. But the old section of our present statute which provides that books of account shall be kept in this state and they shall be open to the inspection of stockholders at all reasonable times, I do not find in the law, it may be that I did not carefully enough scan it.

I agree in the main with Judge Worthington as to the provisions of this law relative to the ownership of stock in one. corporation by another corporation, in reference to the consolidation of corporations, the provisions of which are very amply extended. Personally I do not have any doubt of the constitutionality of this law, I believe it is constitutional, but I think it is mainly a question of public policy, and it seems to me there is no question that it is a complete overturn or overthrow and reversal of the public policy of this state ever since the adoption of the new constitution in 1870. And when another law goes to the legislature coming from this Association, there ought to be some notice served upon the members so that they may investigate and present their ideas upon the subject before it is passed upon by the legislature. I would like to talk longer but I think I have probably taken all the time I ought to. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: A member of this Association' who does

not bore us with many talks, insists that he must be heard and asks the Association to hear him for ten minutes on this matter. With permission I will ask Judge Dougherty be given that privilege.

MR. DOUGHERTY: I do not want ten minutes.

THE PRESIDENT: Take what time you want.

MR. DOUGHERTY: We have, as a people, throughout the United States, set our faces against the union of church and state, where the church gathers its tithes while the state was collecting its taxes, and by the same process we are now going through a systematic attempt to unite trusts and state in the same way. Now I want to say, in speaking of former statutes, he knows as an attorney, that if this bill passed it repealed everything that would go in controverting it. If this Association will take up, I think it is the House Report of 1872, you will see they had a similar bill and Governor Palmer there vetoed that bill, and any man that will read that bill will never for one minute countenance such a thing as that. (Applause.) He never will. Governor Palmer vetoed the attempt to place in the hands of a corporation the power of shutting out the individual from owning land, and it was so dangerous to public policy that he condemned it in strong terms. And when a similar bill came up two years ago I was directed to this veto message of Governor Palmer by Mr. Pickering, and I want to say that after I had shown that to the members of the legislature the bill that was in the legislature slept the Sleep of death from then on because not one single man was in favor of it after reading that opinion. And the members of this bar are not in favor of turning over to corporations that which England had such a time in killing out and stamping out by the statute of mortmain and trying to keep the church from grabbing us, as they are doing.

In

He speaks of different states that have these things. California there is what they call the Church Investment Company, has something like three or four thousand acres of orange trees and they are now controlling the exportation of oranges from the state of California. If you wanted to invest in hard

coal in Pennsylvania, another state he speaks of, you could not get a bushel out of there if the trust did not want you to get it out. Go and tie your hands and then go and try and get loose from it. What I am opposed to is the attempt of this or any other body to foist upon this people a bill that would rob the people of the rights that they have and put it in the hands of people that have a perpetual right or 99 years to hold property and then to transfer it for another 99 years. It is against public policy, I

say.

Now then foreign corporations cannot have any more rights in this state than in conformity with the laws of this state. I would like to see a foreign corporation come in here and sell liquor without a license in anti-saloon territory. Insurance companies, Galesburg had a little taste of that. We have a lot of people that paid in and paid in and paid in their insurance for years and years, and then they turned around and a few of them manipulated it and sold out that insurance company and robbed some three or four hundred people there, they were too old to get any other insurance. Gentlemen, we should let well enough alone. Those laws were made for a purpose and a good purpose and we should not, on the spur of the moment, allow them to be overturned. Then further, I want to protest against the committee submitting, in the name of this Association, anything of this character and moment, without first submitting it to the members of the Association. (Applause.)

MR. BUNDY: I move that this Association take no further steps to secure the passage of this or any other bill before the legislature unless it all comes before this Association before. it is reported to the legislature.

MR. BOULWARE:

THE PRESIDENT:

Motion seconded.

All in favor say aye.

Those opposed

have gone home, I think. Motion is carried. The next matter in order is the too long delayed address of Prof. Mechem, and I ask my brother Kramer, vice president, to take the chair.

The vice president assumes the chair.

THE CHAIRMAN:

Gentlemen of the Association, the next