In this reform the Listing Committee accomplished a twofold blessing in setting the Exchange right with the public by ridding their institution of anything approaching the blind pools of early days and at the same time forcing certain wealthy corporations to abandon their policy of concealment or lose the privilege of the floor. Certainly if the country’s leading steel corporation can afford to take its 150,000 stockholders and its 250,000 employees into its confidence and treat the whole public, including its competitors, with entire frankness, there is no insuperable difficulty about the others. In any case the desire to protect the investor, which is the controlling motive of the elaborate restrictions imposed by French and English laws in new security offerings, has advanced far in this country within the last few years, and the farther it goes the more popular it becomes. That there is still work for the Listing Committee to do goes without saying. One of the most promising improvements that comes to mind at the moment is the one employed in London, where shares of new companies are not admitted to the Board unless a sufficiently large allotment has been made to the public. This is also the rule in New York, but perhaps we may add to its effectiveness by increasing the size of the public allotments. Another praiseworthy feature of the London system is that which has to do with vendor’s shares, which are not listed until six months after the admission of the company’s securities. Under this plan if one or more individuals secure a block of stock in payment for properties in the concern, they are prevented from unloading those shares on the public until a sufficient time has elapsed to determine the merit of the property. Another instance of progress made in recent years in the internal mechanism of the Exchange, is the abolition of fictitious transactions or “wash sales,” utterly indefensible transactions not enforceable at law. These were always prohibited under the rules, yet despite this a flagrant instance of a violation was discovered in which the guilty were made to suffer. So far as I am aware it was the only case on record in which obvious collusion between buyer and seller in a Stock Exchange transaction was shown. The broker in this instance must have known that the Committee would demand his books and that it would appear that no genuine bargain had taken place. If he did not know it, he knows it now. The example made of him will, I fancy, prevent a recurrence of the episode.