| "F. B. Thurber Dead," New-York Daily Tribune (June 7, 1907) "F. B. Thurber Dead," New-York Daily Tribune (June 7, 1907). Varied Career of Once Wealthy Business Man Closed. Francis B. Thurber, one of the organizers of the New York Board of Trade and Transportation, died yesterday at his home, No. 49 West 25th street. He was sixty-five years old. Beginning as an office boy at $2 a week, Mr. Thurber gradually advanced until he became one of the principal members of H. K. & F. B. Thurber and Co., and later president of the American Grocery Association. He acquired a fortune, which was swept away in the panic of 1893. Mr. Thurber never recovered from that loss, and despite heroic efforts to gain some headway, he was forced to sign a petition in bankruptcy in 1901, his total liabilities being more than $250,000. Mr. Thurber, in his prosperous days, was keenly interested in the advancement of American opera, and lost thousands of dollars, it was said, in furthering this enterprise. Prior to and after his failure Mr. Thurber studied law and at the age of fifty-seven, in 1899, was admitted to the bar. He built up some practice, and tried to recoup his lost fortune and pay some of his creditors. Despite a brief incursion into the independent field, he was a staunch Republican, and was one of the trustees of the East River Bridge under Mayor Strong. He supported Cleveland in 1884, 1888, and 1892 as a leader of the Anti-Monopoly League. Later, however, he changed his views and became a firm protectionist. At the trust conference in Chicago, in 1899, he made a remarkable defence of corporations. Funeral services will be held at the family home on Monday morning. In the Directory of Directors Mr. Thurber's name appears as president and director of the Producers' Export Company and a director of the New York Board of Trade and Transportation. |
|
Concerning Trusts And Corporations
SNIP
Railroads afford the most conspicuous example of the formation of big corporations with which no individual power can compete; and even where governments in Europe have tried to compete they have failed to make money. It is to be hoped that the experiment will never be tried here, as there is no necessity for taxing the people to invest their money in enterprises that would be almost certain to leave the taxation a permanent burden on the country. One of the most significant examples of change of heart as to the morale of railroad corporations and combinations was afforded in the testimony of Mr. F. B. Thurber before the Lexow committee. About a dozen years ago he was a leader among anti-monopolists, and spent about $100,000 in printer's ink, paper, and otherwise, in addition to much valuable time in opposing trusts, monopolies, combinations, and corporations. After the experiment had cost him a vast deal, he discovered that many of the combinations which he had been so strenuously opposing, while working in their own selfish interests, were also doing great work for the benefit of the whole community. They had builded much better than either they or Mr. Thurber knew, though their building was all the result of efforts for self-aggrandizement. This is an important illustration of the principle, that in the aggregation of wealth devoted to the promotion and development of great enterprises for the purpose of enriching its members and with little or no desire on their part to benefit the many, the latter have one of the best guaranties possible that they will be taken care of. Wealth cannot possibly combine and go into any business that will largely increase its returns without conferring much greater benefits upon the community than if the wealth in question had remained in its isolated fragments where it would in all probability have been spent without any extensive distribution. The aggregate is likely to be directed by chosen brain power, skill, and experience, and is almost certain to increase and multiply by the innate power and conditions of its very existence and employment. Apropos of this benign and universal principle, which seems to work about as independently of the purposes and desires of interested individuals as the law of gravitation, I here introduce the testimony of Mr. Thurber in corroboration of this and other matters of interest on the point at issue. It must be regarded as disinterested in view of his former attitude, and he is a man of great intelligence, well versed in politics and economics, of thorough practical capacity, an expert accountant, and possessed of extraordinary executive ability in business, so that his conclusions, based on his protracted experience and irrefragable statistics, can hardly be erroneous. When on the stand he referred to the fact that the consolidation of railroad organizations was the most conspicuous example of the working of the so-called trusts. Explaining the success of this experiment, and the former fears excited by it, Mr. Thurber said: —
" There was a fear in the public mind, in which I shared, that these combinations and consolidations would result in exorbitant rates for transportation and to the detriment of the public interest. What the result has been is shown by the following extract from a report adopted by the National Board of Trade at its annual convention in I896: ' The average charge for sending a ton of freight one mile on thirteen of the most important railroads in the United States during 1865 was 3.08 cents; in 1870, 1.80 cents; in 1875, 1.36 cents; in 1880, 1.01 cents; in 1885, 0.83 cents; in 1890, 0.77 cents; in 1893, 0.76 cents; in 1894, 0.746 cents, and, in 1895, 0.720 cents. These railroads performed one-third of the entire transportation of 1893, and, from the figures given, it appears that 0.72 cents would pay for as much transportation over their lines in 1895 as could have been obtained for 3.08 cents thirty years earlier.'"
The witness produced a tabular statement showing the influence of the Standard Oil combination on the prices of refined illuminating oils, per gallon, exported from the United States, 1871 to 1896. On the general principles of aggregation, as he has found them, Mr. Thurber testified: -
" A combination of capital in any line temporarily exacts a liberal profit; immediately capital flows into that channel, another combination is formed, and competition ensues on a scale and operates with an intensity far beyond anything that is possible on a smaller scale, resulting in the breaking down of the combination and the decline of profits to a minimum. The only trusts which have succeeded for any length of time have been those which have been conducted on a far-sighted basis of moderate margins of profit, relying upon a large turnover, and the economies resulting from the command of large capital intelligently administered. The truth of this is illustrated by innumerable failures in trust organizations, recent illustrations of which are the Strawboard Trust, the Starch Trust, the Wire Nail Trust, and the Steel Trust. There are trusts so-called in nearly every branch of business, and there are good and bad in all, but the good so far predominates that such aggregations of capital should be encouraged accompanied by safeguards against abuses. The only additional safeguards needed are for stockholders and investors, whose interests are often sacrificed through lack of publicity. So far as the interest of consumers is concerned, it is amply protected now; first, by competition, as I have shown, and, second, by the common law, which, if invoked, will nullify any contract in restraint of trade, and under existing statutes any unreasonable combination is subject to indictment for conspiracy. "The popular hostility to trusts is due principally to lack of knowledge of their economic effects, and these are gradually becoming better known. There were just enough abuses attending them to give an excuse for sensational journalistic denunciation, and this has caused undue prejudice. A great politico-economic question like this should be considered dispassionately and all sides of it carefully investigated before conclusions are reached. The result of my many years' study of it has been to modify materially the views I entertained in the beginning. "While within the limits of a hearing like this it is impossible to discuss exhaustively all the varying phases of so large a subject, I have endeavored to present to your committee the thoughts which have come to me in a somewhat extended observation and study of the phenomena attending the great economic revolution now in process of development, with the hope that they may have suggested some points which are worthy of further consideration and which may aid your committee in arriving at wise conclusions."
Senator Lexow wished to know whether the witness favored legislative supervision of prices. In answer to questions, Mr. Thurber said that he believed that competition against the American Sugar Company was increasing and would continue to increase. Mr. Thurber did some sums in arithmetic to show that the price of granulated sugar was 6.77 cents per pound for five years preceding the Trust, and for the first five years subsequent it was 5.97. "Do not the large dividends," asked the Assemblyman Mazet, "prove that the consumer does not get the whole benefit?" "Certainly," was the reply. "In my own business," he said, " I would never again incorporate if it could be carried on individually." He admitted that speculation in stocks was possible when they were listed, but added that thousands of corporations did not list their stocks. He cited the Standard Oil Company as a conspicuous example of a company whose stock was not used for speculation.
SNIP