It does not appear that any reasonable man could, as the stockholder of a corporation, or as a private citizen, object to having dishonest or sharp practices on the part of the active management of the property in question exposed and prevented. Where it is shown that an individual, in his capacity as the head of a business, has employed his office as a means of juggling stocks or reaping enormous personal gains, it cannot but be to the interest of stockholders to have such practices stopped. If the means at issue are honest and legitimate, the benefits reaped should go to the stockholders. It is impossible to reconcile any other plan with equity and common honesty. Let us look at the matter without the mystery that obscures the affairs of a great corporation. Suppose a member of a certain firm, its manager, finding the firm in need of funds, secures money at a high rate, and at great profit to himself--is that right? Or is it the manager’s business to work entirely in the interest of the partners he represents? Is it possible for him to legitimately acquire personal profit of any kind in administering the affairs of the firm? It is not sufficient to point out that the manager’s action in securing funds redounded to the great benefit of the business concern, or that his capability and shrewdness were reflected in enormous partnership profits. His associates in business are entitled to all, not a portion, of the gains secured in the management of its affairs. It is submitted that much of our recent legislation which is popularly supposed to have injured stock values has, in reality, aimed to protect the small holder and throttle the unscrupulous men who, while actually in their employ, were milking their business of millions. Legislation which effects publicity and simplicity in the affairs of corporations is an unmixed benefit to the small investors. It is almost invariably the case that when a great decline in stock prices occurs, the set-back is popularly attributed to some factor which, in reality, had little to do with the reversal. In the decline of 1907, thousands of people attributed the inability of railroads to borrow money at low rates of interest almost entirely to hostile legislation. Apparently these rapid-fire thinkers did not know or realize that interest rates had risen the world over, that there was not a free money market in the world, and that money, instead of being withheld from 4% issues, was fully employed in other lines. Such, however, was the case; British Consols, French Rentes,--all the choice securities of civilized countries had kept pace with the declines in our own bonds and stocks; but these facts seem to be unappreciated.