The Dominion. SATURDAY, JANUARY 26, 1935. COMPANY LAW AS PROTECTION

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 104, 26 January 1935, Page 6

The Dominion. SATURDAY, JANUARY 26, 1935. COMPANY LAW AS PROTECTION

-0 Mr. T. S. Barton's address to the executive of the Associated Chambers" of Commerce yesterday.reinforced in lucid and c. onv1 """? argument the case, already largely accepted, for a company law as a measure for the protection of the public: a a m dishonest practices. There are rogues in all walks of life and tt • no reflection on the character of those whose ! nte^L 1 P F against the temptation to exploit the cupidity and gullibility - public that restrictions are necessary to circumscribe as far as POSSiUe those who are less scrupulous. At the same time as The• Tnnes _ po n i out in the celebrated Hatry case, care should be taken that the restrictions proposed should be such as will not unduly complicate or impede the flexible traffic of affairs. “Dishonesty, said ‘hat journal, “will not be checked because it has two obstacles to surmount instead ° f °lt would seem therefore that a balance has to be struck between the capacity and willingness of the financial world to keep its own house in order and the degree of restriction required to Pioy'ded by legislation to reinforce its efforts and also to protect investo .. It has been said that if it were not for the fools -there would be no rogues, but it should be remembered also that among the investing public is a large number of people, a majority, whose belief in an investment is founded on the integrity of those who have piomoted the particular enterprise. They are not expert enough to judge fu themselves, from the facts set before them, whether the investment is as sound as it may be claimed to be, but, as is often the case, the: decision is influenced by considerations of personal reputation. Upon these their confidence is largely based, and it is essential to the strength of the structure of finance that it should not be shakei by dishonest practices, the revelation of which tends to bring all new financial ventures under doubt and suspicion. . c If, as Mr. Barton declares, our company law falls short ot me requirements for restricting questionable operations and manipulations in finance detrimental to the public interest, then by all means let it be strengthened. What seems, to be the best hue of reform is that which would enable a representative governing body m the financial community to impose strict discipline upon, its own members, and insist upon a high standard of business integrity. This count: y is sufficiently well served by . representative professional and commercial associations to make it possible for these to maintain by their own rules high standards of principles and practice. Some people may be inclined to dispute the need for moral stocktaking all round; others, however, .have declared that the mad get-rich-quick competition of the boom years has left its mark in depreciated standards in business ethics. However that may be, it io certainly true that people cannot be made virtuous by Acts ot 1 arliament, and legislative restrictions in respect to financial and commercial transactions may fail to restrain dishonesty if a higher and healthier ethical morale does not prevail in business. Given this it ought to be impossible for anyone to engage in. say, the business of company promoting, unless his qualifications and credentials have been accepted by the governing institution recognisec as the authority responsible- for the conduct of persons so engagec. It has been said there is no friendship in business; but at least there should be principles. It is by the recognition and practice of these, or their neglect, that public confidence may be either won or lost.