THE GREEN BAG invested necessarily contemplates the eva sion and breaking of the laws. Yet this distinction between a corporation committing crime incidentally and as a business is one having no analogy in the criminal law as applied to natural persons. If John Smith, after a long and virtuous career, forges a check for a thousand dollars and is con victed he is designated a criminal. If John Smith, entering the service of a bank with the intention of earning an honest living, is tempted by pressing needs of an invalid wife or an indigent race-horse and grants himself rebates on his receipts at the teller's window, he becomes a criminal in the eyes of the law. The surety company and trust ing uncle who have innocently signed his bond risking their money in the security of his honesty are liable to the extent of his defalcation. To urge that a wrongdoing corporation is not criminal because it only commits crimes sporadically is, first, piti fully without foundation of authority in the domain of the criminal, law; second, plainly untrue as a practical fact, since the crimes of corporations against which legis lation has been enacted are those wherein a course of law-breaking has been and is a settled policy of the corporation, and one which month after month and year after year has steadily piled up illegal gains for the enterprise. The question, however, raised by the advocacy of imprisonment for corporations is not whether the stockholders shall for feit absolutely their investment. The assets of the corporation would be held for the term of imprisonment by the State, and on the expiration of the sentence they would of course revert to their original owners as a discharged convict is returned to his family. Neither would the interests of the stock holders suffer to that extent which would be caused by a total cessation of the activ ities of the corporation. Mr. Judson's assumption that an industry would be paralyzed during the period of imprison ment is not properly founded on the writer's
original article wherein the statement was made — " for the period of punishment . . . not a bond should bear interest, not a share of stock pay a dividend . . . not a wheel of machinery should be turned except in the service of and for the benefit of the State. ' ' The suggestion in the above-quoted sentence is plainly made that an intelligent governor would not paralyze an industry during the period of imprisonment, but would, on the contrary, gladly devote its legitimate profits to the service of the State, meanwhile giving employment to the innocent employees and saving so much of the wealth of the com munity from needless rust and decay. With this portion of the theory of im prisonment correctly understood little fur ther answer is required to Mr. Judson's third point that the public at large would suffer in its interest. In the first place the interest of the public at large in the ordi nary corporation is entirely an historical and theoretical one, except in so far as the State has inherent control over its artificial creation. Certainly this control cannot be confined within smaller limits than that exercised over natural persons. In the workings of the average private corpora tion the State obviously has no further interest than in the workings of any private individual engaged in large enterprises. This lack of any real interest of the State in private corporations is now practically admitted in all courts, the old fiction of public interest being generally removed as a useless and dangerous appendix. The interest of the State in quasi public corpora tions can be quite exactly compared to the interest of the State in quasi public officers. Men operating public franchises can be held to certain strict responsibilities, and the same should certainly be true of corpora tions. Would any one advocate that the president of a great railroad, or even its entire directorate, if caught in deliberate criminality, should be punished only with a fine because of the severe harm which might ensue to the general public should
