译者｜钱喻晓  北京大学法律硕士
一审｜罗兰西  Cornell LLM
二审｜骆佩贤  Bristol LLM
编辑｜许素敏 广州美术学院本科
责编｜李   薇 浙江工商大学本科
AP Smith Manufacturing Co. v. Barlow, 13 N.J. 145, 98 A.2d 581 (N.J. 1953)
私营企业有权利进行慈善捐赠吗？AP史密斯制造公司诉其股东
前言
本案是有关企业社会责任的经典美国公司法案例，涉及私营公司是否有权利进行慈善捐赠。本案法院通过驳斥被告的两个主张证明了：一、公司的慈善捐赠与普通法原则不冲突；二、明确授权公司捐赠权力的新泽西州法规可以适用于本案。这篇判决书肯定了企业的社会责任与慈善捐赠的社会价值。
一、案件概要
The company was incorporated in 1896 and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of valves, fire hydrants and special equipment, mainly for water and gas industries. Over the years the company has contributed regularly to the local community and, on occasions to Upsala College in East Orange and Newark University, now part of Rutgers, the State University. On July 24, 1951 the board of directors adopted a resolution which set forth that it was in the corporation's best interests to join with others in the 1951 Annual Giving to Princeton University, and appropriated the sum of $1,500 to be transferred by the corporation's treasurer to the university as a contribution towards its maintenance. When this action was questioned by stockholders the corporation instituted a declaratory judgment action in the Chancery Division and trial was had in due course.
该公司（AP史密斯制造公司）成立于1896年，从事主要用于水利和天然气行业的阀门、消防栓和特殊设备的制造和销售业务。多年来，该公司定期向当地社区捐款，有时则向东奥兰治的乌普萨拉学院和纽瓦克大学（现为罗格斯州立大学的一部分）捐款。1951年7月24日，董事会通过了一项决议，规定：与其他组织一起参与1951年对普林斯顿大学的年度捐赠是符合公司的最佳利益的，并拨款1500美元，由公司财务主管转给普林斯顿以帮助其运营。当股东对这一行为提出质疑时，该公司向法院的衡平分庭提起确认诉讼。审判已按适当程序进行。
Mr. Hubert F. O'Brien, the president of the company, testified that he considered the contribution to be a sound investment, that the public expects corporations to aid philanthropic and benevolent institutions, that they obtain good will in the community by so doing, and that their charitable donations create favorable environment for their business operations. In addition, he expressed the thought that in contributing to liberal arts institutions, corporations were furthering their self-interest in assuring the free flow of properly trained personnel for administrative and other corporate employment.
该公司总裁Hubert F. O'Brien先生作证称，他认为此项捐款是一项合理的投资：公众期望企业帮助慈善机构，而企业能够通过这样做获得社区的好感，并且他们的慈善捐赠为其商业运营创造了有利的环境。此外，他还表示，企业在为博雅教育机构做出贡献的同时，也在确保经过恰当培训的行政人员和其他企业就业人员的自由流动，从而促进自身利益。
Dr. Harold W. Dodds, President of Princeton University, suggested that if private institutions of higher learning were replaced by governmental institutions, our society would be vastly different and private enterprise in other fields would fade out rather promptly. Further on he stated that "democratic society will not long endure if it does not nourish within itself strong centers of non-governmental fountains of knowledge, opinions of all sorts not governmentally or politically originated. If the time comes when all these centers are absorbed into government, then freedom as we know it, I submit, is at an end."
普林斯顿大学校长Harold W. Dodds博士表示，如果私立高等教育机构被政府机构取代，我们的社会将会发生很大变化，其他领域的私营企业也会很快消失。他进一步指出：“如果民主社会不在其内部培育强大的非政府性的知识源泉中心，不能培养非政府性和非政治性的各种观点，那么民主社会将不能长久存在。如果有一天，所有这些中心都被吸纳进政府，那么正如我们所知道的那样，我认为，自由将被终结。
The objecting stockholders have not disputed any of the foregoing testimony nor the showing of great need by Princeton and other private institutions of higher learning and the important public service being rendered by them for democratic government and industry alike. Nevertheless, they have taken the position that (1) the plaintiff's certificate of incorporation does not expressly authorize the contribution and under common-law principles the company does not possess any implied or incidental power to make it, and (2) the New Jersey statutes which expressly authorize the contribution may not constitutionally be applied to the plaintiff, a corporation created long before their enactment.
持反对意见的股东没有对上述任何证词提出异议，也没有对普林斯顿和其他私立高等教育机构的庞大需求以及它们为民主政府和工业界提供的重要公共服务表达质疑。但是，他们认为：一、原告的公司注册证明没有明确授权其捐赠，而在普通法原则下，公司不具备任何默示权力或附随权力进行捐赠；二、明确授权捐赠的新泽西州法规根据宪法不能适用于原告，原告是新泽西州法规颁布之前很久就成立的公司。
（图片源于网络）
二、争议焦点
1. 普通法原则与企业捐赠
In his discussion of the early history of business corporations Professor Williston refers to a 1702 publication where the author stated flatly that "The general intent and end of all civil incorporations is for better government." And he points out that the early corporate charters, particularly their recitals, furnish additional support for the notion that the corporate object was the public one of managing and ordering the trade as well as the private one of profit for the members. However, with later economic and social developments and the free availability of the corporate device for all trades, the end of private profit became generally accepted as the controlling one in all businesses other than those classed broadly as public utilities. As a concomitant the common-law rule developed that those who managed the corporation could not disburse any corporate funds for philanthropic or other worthy public cause unless the expenditure would benefit the corporation. During the 19th Century when corporations were relatively few and small and did not dominate the country's wealth, the common-law rule did not significantly interfere with the public interest. But the 20th Century has presented a different climate. Control of economic wealth has passed largely from individual entrepreneurs to dominating corporations, and calls upon the corporations for reasonable philanthropic donations have come to be made with increased public support.
在讨论商业公司的早期历史时，Williston教授提到了1702年的一份出版物，其作者直截了当地指出：“所有民事公司的整体目的就是为了更好的治理。”他指出，早期的公司章程，特别是其事实陈述部分，为这样一种观念提供了额外的支持——即公司的目标既包括公共性的，比如管理和订购交易，也包括私人性的，比如为成员带来利润。然而，随着此后经济和社会的发展，以及所有交易都可以免费使用公司设备这一现象，除了那些被广泛归于公共事业的公司，私人利益被普遍认为是所有公司的主导性目标。随之而来的普通法原则规定，公司的管理人员不得将任何公司资金用于慈善或其他有价值的公共事业，除非该支出对公司有利。在19世纪，当公司数量相对较少、规模较小且不主宰国家财富时，这一普通法原则并不会显著干涉公共利益，但是20世纪展现出不同的风气：对经济财富的控制很大程度上从私人企业家转移到大公司手中；在公众的支持下，也出现了让企业进行合理的慈善捐赠的号召。
Thus, in the leading case of Evans v. Brunner, Mond & Company, Ltd. [1921] 1 Ch. 359, the court held that it was within the incidental power of a chemical company to grant £100,000 to universities or other scientific institutions selected by the directors "for the furtherance of scientific education and research." The testimony indicated that the company desired to encourage and assist men who would devote their time and abilities to scientific study and research generally, a class of men for whom the company was constantly on the lookout. This benefit was not considered by the court to be so remote as to bring it outside the common-law rule.
因此，在典型案例Evans v. Brunner, Mond & Company, Ltd.中，法院认为，化学公司有附带权利给予大学或者其他被董事选中的科研机构10万英镑“以促进科学教育和研究”。证词表明，公司希望鼓励和帮助那些将时间与能力投入科学研究的人，而公司一直在寻找这样的人。法院不认为这些好处微乎其微以至于将其排除在普通法规则之外。
In American Rolling Mill Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 41 F.2d 314 (C.C.A. 6 1930), the corporation had joined with other local industries in the creation of a civic improvement fund to be distributed amongst community enterprises including the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, the Y.M.C.A., the Hospital, etc. The court readily sustained the contribution as an ordinary and necessary expense of the business within the Revenue Act. 
在American Rolling Mill Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue案中，公司与其他当地产业联合创立了一项社区改善基金，该基金将被分配给包括男女童子军、基督教青年会、医院等在内的社区组织。法院欣然支持这笔捐赠属于《税收法》所规定的普通和必要的商业开支。
The foregoing authorities illustrate how courts, while adhering to the terms of the common-law rule, have applied it very broadly to enable worthy corporate donations with indirect benefits to the corporations. 
上述权威说明了法院如何在遵守普通法规则的同时广泛应用该规则，以实现有价值的企业捐赠，从而为企业带来间接利益。
（图片源于网络）
When the wealth of the nation was primarily in the hands of individuals they discharged their responsibilities as citizens by donating freely for charitable purposes. With the transfer of most of the wealth to corporate hands and the imposition of heavy burdens of individual taxation, they have been unable to keep pace with increased philanthropic needs. They have therefore, with justification, turned to corporations to assume the modern obligations of good citizenship in the same manner as humans do. Congress and state legislatures have enacted laws which encourage corporate contributions, and much has recently been written to indicate the crying need and adequate legal basis therefor. In actual practice corporate giving has correspondingly increased. 
当国家的财富主要掌握在个人手中时，他们通过免费慈善捐赠以履行作为公民的责任。随着大部分财富转移到企业手中、个人税收的负担逐渐加重，他们已经无法跟上日益增长的慈善需求。因此，他们有理由转向企业，以与人类相同的方式去承担起现代良善公民的义务。国会和州立法机构已经颁布了鼓励企业捐赠的法律，而且最近有很多文章表明了迫切的需求和充分的法律依据。在实践中，企业捐赠也相应增长。
During the first world war corporations loaned their personnel and contributed substantial corporate funds in order to insure survival; during the depression of the '30s they made contributions to alleviate the desperate hardships of the millions of unemployed; and during the second world war they again contributed to insure survival. They now recognize that we are faced with other, though nonetheless vicious, threats from abroad which must be withstood without impairing the vigor of our democratic institutions at home and that otherwise victory will be pyrrhic indeed. More and more they have come to recognize that their salvation rests upon sound economic and social environment which in turn rests in no insignificant part upon free and vigorous non-governmental institutions of learning. It seems to us that just as the conditions prevailing when corporations were originally created required that they serve public as well as private interests, modern conditions require that corporations acknowledge and discharge social as well as private responsibilities as members of the communities within which they operate.
在第一次世界大战期间，企业借款给员工并贡献了大量的企业资金以确保其生存；在20世纪30年代的大萧条时期，它们为减轻几百万失业者的悲惨困境作出了贡献；在第二次世界大战期间，它们再次为确保其生存作出了贡献。企业现在认识到，我们正面临着其他的、仍然险恶的境外威胁，这些威胁必须在不损害我们国家的民主制度的前提下被抵抗住，否则胜利一定将伴随着极大的代价。企业越来越认识到，它们的救星依赖于稳定的经济和社会环境，而这反过来又很大程度上依仗着自由与充满活力的非政府性教育机构。对我们而言，正如当企业最初创建时的社会情况要求它们要服务于公共利益和私人利益一样，现代社会情况要求企业——作为其经营所在的社区成员，应当认识到并承担起社会责任和私人责任。
Within this broad concept there is no difficulty in sustaining, as incidental to their proper objects and in aid of the public welfare, the power of corporations to contribute corporate funds within reasonable limits in support of academic institutions. But even if we confine ourselves to the terms of the common-law rule in its application to current conditions, such expenditures may likewise readily be justified as being for the benefit of the corporation; indeed, if need be the matter may be viewed strictly in terms of actual survival of the corporation in a free enterprise system. The genius of our common law has been its capacity for growth and its adaptability to the needs of the times. Generally courts have accomplished the desired result indirectly through the molding of old forms. Occasionally they have done it directly through frank rejection of the old and recognition of the new. But whichever path the common law has taken it has not been found wanting as the proper tool for the advancement of the general good. 
在这个广泛的概念范围内，不难支持企业在合理限度内贡献其资金以支持学术机构的权力——这与它们恰当的目标密切相关，也是为公共福利提供帮助。但是，即使我们在当下的社会情况中将自己限制于普通法规则，此类支出同样可以因为是基于公司利益而很容易地被证明为合理的；事实上，如果需要的话，可以严格从企业在自由企业制度中的实际生存的角度看待这个问题。我们普通法的天才之处在于它成长的能力和根据时代需要的适应性。通常而言，法院通过改造旧形式间接达到预期的结果。偶尔，他们通过对旧观念的直白拒绝和对新观念的认可来直接做到这一点。但是，无论普通法选择哪条路径，它都不失为促进公共利益的恰当工。
2. 本案是否可以适用新泽西州法规（New Jersey Statute）
In 1930 a statute was enacted in our State which expressly provided that any corporation could cooperate with other corporations and natural persons in the creation and maintenance of community funds and charitable, philanthropic or benevolent instrumentalities conducive to public welfare, and could for such purposes expend such corporate sums as the directors "deem expedient and as in their judgment will contribute to the protection of the corporate interests." Under the terms of the statute, donations in excess of 1% of the capital stock required 10 days' notice to stockholders and approval at a stockholders' meeting if written objections were made by the holders of more than 25% of the stock; in 1949 the statute was amended to increase the limitation to 1% of capital and surplus. 
1930年，我们州发布了一项法规，明确规定任何企业都可以与其他企业、自然人合作创立与运营社区基金和公益慈善机构，并且可以为此花费资金，只要董事认为相应金额“是权宜之计，而且根据其判断有助于保护公司利益”。根据该法规，捐赠超过1%股本的，应当提前10天通知股东，如果持股占比25%以上的股东提出书面反对意见，则须经过股东大会批准；1949年，法规得到了修改，将资本和盈余的限制提高到1%。
（图片源于网络）
In 1950 a more comprehensive statute was enacted. In this enactment the Legislature declared that it shall be the public policy of our State and in furtherance of the public interest and welfare that encouragement be given to the creation and maintenance of institutions engaged in community fund, hospital, charitable, philanthropic, educational, scientific or benevolent activities or patriotic or civic activities conducive to the betterment of social and economic conditions; and it expressly empowered corporations acting singly or with others to contribute reasonable sums to such institutions, provided, however, that the contribution shall not be permissible if the donee institution owns more than 10% of the voting stock of the donor and provided, further, that the contribution shall not exceed 1% of capital and surplus unless the excess is authorized by the stockholders at a regular or special meeting. To insure that the grant of express power in the 1950 statute would not displace pre-existing power at common law or otherwise, the Legislature provided that the "act shall not be construed as directly or indirectly minimizing or interpreting the rights and powers of corporations, as heretofore existing, with reference to appropriations, expenditures or contributions of the nature above specified."
1950年，我们州颁布了更全面的法规。这次，立法机关声称，应当鼓励设立和维护致力于社区基金、医院和慈善、教育、科学领域的机构，以及有助于更良好的社会和经济环境的慈善、爱国和公民的活动，这是我们州的公共政策，也有利于促进公共利益和公众福祉。而且立法机关明确地授权公司单独或和其他组织、个人一起向这类机构捐赠合理的款项，但条件是：如果受赠机构拥有捐赠者10%以上的投票权股份，那么将不允许此次捐赠。另一个条件是，捐赠额不得超过资本和盈余的1%，除非股东在定期或者特殊会议上授权了超出部分。为了确保1950年法规中明确授予的权力不会取代普通法或其他法中此前存在的权力，立法机构规定：当涉及到有关上述性质的拨款、支出或捐款时，该法案不得被理解为直接或间接地最小化或解释企业的权利和权力。
The appellants contend that the foregoing New Jersey statutes may not be applied to corporations created before their passage. Fifty years before the incorporation of The A.P. Smith Manufacturing Company our Legislature provided that every corporate charter thereafter granted "shall be subject to alteration, suspension and repeal, in the discretion of the legislature." 
被告声称，前述的新泽西州法规不能适用于在其通过以前创设的公司。在A.P. 史密斯建造公司成立前50年，我们的立法机关规定，此后授予的每一份公司章程“均应由立法机关自行决定进行变更、暂停和废除。”
A similar reserved power was placed into our State Constitution in 1875, and is found in our present Constitution. In the early case of Zabriskie v. Hackensack and New York Railroad Company, 18 N.J. Eq. 178 (Ch. 1867), the court was called upon to determine whether a railroad could extend its line, above objection by a stockholder, under a legislative enactment passed under the reserve power after the incorporation of the railroad. Notwithstanding the breadth of the statutory language and persuasive authority elsewhere, it was held that the proposed extension of the company's line constituted a vital change of its corporate object which could not be accomplished without unanimous consent. 
1875年，一种类似的保留权力被置于我们的州宪法中，而且在我们现在的宪法中也存在着。在早期案例Zabriskie v. Hackensack and New York Railroad Company里，法院被要求决定：在一位股东反对的情况下，基于保留权力，根据一项在铁路公司成立后通过的立法，一条铁路是否可以延长其线路。尽管法条语言比较宽泛，且存在其他地方可供参考的判例，但法院仍然认为延长公司的线路构成了其公司目标的重大改变，而这未经一致同意是无法实现的。
The court announced the now familiar New Jersey doctrine that although the reserved power permits alterations in the public interest of the contract between the state and the corporation, it has no effect on the contractual rights between the corporation and its stockholders and between stockholders inter se. Unfortunately, the court did not consider whether it was not contrary to the public interest to permit the single minority stockholder before it to restrain the railroad's normal corporate growth and development as authorized by the Legislature and approved, reasonably and in good faith, by the corporation's managing directors and majority stockholders. Although the later cases in New Jersey have not disavowed the doctrine of the Zabriskie case, it is noteworthy that they have repeatedly recognized that where justified by the advancement of the public interest the reserved power may be invoked to sustain later charter alterations even though they affect contractual rights between the corporation and its stockholders and between stockholders inter se. 
法院宣告了如今人们所熟悉的“新泽西州原则”，即尽管保留权力允许为了公共利益而改变州和公司之间的合同，但它对公司与股东之间以及股东内部之间的合同权利没有影响。不幸的是，法院没有考虑到下述情况是否会违背公共利益：按照立法机关的授权以及公司的管理董事和大多数股东的合理、善意批准, 单一少数股东被允许限制铁路公司的正常成长和发展。尽管新泽西州后来的案件并没有否认Zabriskie案的原则，但值得注意的是，它们一再承认，如果可以用促进公共利益来证明其合理性，即使会影响到公司与股东之间以及股东内部之间的合同权利，也仍然可以援引保留权力来证成此后的章程变更。
State legislation adopted in the public interest and applied to pre-existing corporations under the reserved power has repeatedly been sustained by the United States Supreme Court above the contention that it impairs the rights of stockholders and violates constitutional guarantees under the Federal Constitution. … Thus, in Looker v. Maynard, 179 U.S. 46, 21 S.Ct. 21, 45 L.Ed. 79 (1900), the court sustained the application to pre-existing corporations of later legislation designed to secure minority representation on boards of directors by permitting cumulative voting by stockholders; in Polk v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association of New York, 207 U.S. 310, 28 S.Ct. 65, 52 L.Ed. 222 (1907), the court sustained state legislation which permitted reorganizations of existing corporations involving changes in their corporate purposes…We are entirely satisfied that within the orbit of above authorities the legislative enactments found in R.S. 14:3-13 and N.J.S.A. 14:3-13.1 et seq. and applied to pre-existing corporations do not violate any constitutional guarantees afforded to their stockholders.
尽管有反对意见声称：保留权力会损害股东的权利而且将违反联邦宪法规定的宪法保障，美国最高法院一再支持这一点：使用保留权力将为了公共利益的州立法适用于先前设立的企业。……因此，在Looker v. Maynard案中，法院支持将后来的立法适用于先前存在的公司，该立法旨在通过允许股东累积投票来确保董事会中的少数代表权；在Polk v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association of New York案中，法院支持了允许对现有公司进行重组（包括改变公司目的）的州立法……我们完全满意的是，在上述当局的管辖范围内，《新泽西州修订法规》和《新泽西州法规注释》中的规定如果适用于先前的公司将不会破坏为其股东提供的任何宪法保障。
It seems clear to us that the public policy supporting the statutory enactments under consideration is far greater and the alteration of pre-existing rights of stockholders much lesser than in the cited cases sustaining various exercises of the reserve power. In encouraging and expressly authorizing reasonable charitable contributions by corporations, our State has not only joined with other states in advancing the national interest but has also specially furthered the interests of its own people who must bear the burdens of taxation resulting from increased state and federal aid upon default in voluntary giving. It is significant that in its enactments the State had not in anywise sought to impose any compulsory obligations or alter the corporate objectives. And since in our view the corporate power to make reasonable charitable contributions exists under modern conditions, even apart from express statutory provision, its enactments simply constitute helpful and confirmatory declarations of such power, accompanied by limiting safeguards.
对我们而言，这一点很清楚：支持考虑中的法规的公共政策要多得多，而相较于我们援引的上述使用保留权力的案例，目前对股东原有权利的改变要小得多。为了鼓励并明确授权企业进行合理的慈善捐赠，我们州不仅与其他州联合以促进国家利益，而更特别的是，我们促进本州人民的利益：他们须承担由于自愿捐款的不能所导致的日益加重的税收。很重要的是，本州在其颁布的法规中并未以任何方式试图施加任何强制性义务或改变企业目的。我们认为，由于在现代社会情况中，即使没有明确的法律规定，公司也是有权力做出合理的慈善捐款的，所以该法规的颁布也只是构成了对这种权力有帮助的和确认性的声明，附以有限的保障措施。
（图片源于网络）
三、结论
In the light of all of the foregoing we have no hesitancy in sustaining the validity of the donation by the plaintiff. There is no suggestion that it was made indiscriminately or to a pet charity of the corporate directors in furtherance of personal rather than corporate ends. On the contrary, it was made to a preeminent institution of higher learning, was modest in amount and well within the limitations imposed by the statutory enactments, and was voluntarily made in the reasonable belief that it would aid the public welfare and advance the interests of the plaintiff as a private corporation and as part of the community in which it operates. We find that it was a lawful exercise of the corporation's implied and incidental powers under common-law principles and that it came within the express authority of the pertinent state legislation.
综上所述，我们毫不犹豫地支持原告捐赠的正当性。没有迹象表明这是不加区分做出的捐赠，也没有迹象表明这是为了促进个人而非公司目的从而向公司董事的宠物慈善机构提供的捐赠。恰恰相反，它是一笔向杰出的高等教育机构做出的捐款，它数额不大而且在法规的限制之内，这是在合理的信念下自愿做出的：这将有助于公共福祉，也有助于原告的利益——原告既是一家私营公司，也是其经营所在的社区的一部分。我们认为，基于普通法原则，该行为是公司对其普通法原则下默示权力和附随权力的合法行使，而且也在有关州立法的明确授权范围内。
As has been indicated, there is now widespread belief throughout the nation that free and vigorous non-governmental institutions of learning are vital to our democracy and the system of free enterprise and that withdrawal of corporate authority to make such contributions within reasonable limits would seriously threaten their continuance. Corporations have come to recognize this and with their enlightenment have sought in varying measures, as has the plaintiff by its contribution, to insure and strengthen the society which gives them existence and the means of aiding themselves and their fellow citizens. Clearly then, the appellants, as individual stockholders whose private interests rest entirely upon the well-being of the plaintiff corporation, ought not be permitted to close their eyes to present-day realities and thwart the long-visioned corporate action in recognizing and voluntarily discharging its high obligations as a constituent of our modern social structure.
正如前文所言，如今我们国家的人民普遍相信，自由而充满活力的非政府性教育机构对我们的民主体制和自由企业制度至关重要，而收回企业在合理限度内进行慈善捐赠的权利将严重地威胁其存续。企业已经认识到了这一点，带着这种认知，正如原告通过慈善捐赠所做的这样，它们用各种各样的方式去保护和加强这个使它们以及它们的公民友人们赖以生存的社会。那么，这就很清楚了：被告作为个体股东，其私人利益完全依赖于原告公司的良好发展，不应当允许他们对当今的现实熟视无睹，也不应当允许他们去阻碍这样一种有长远眼光的企业行为——作为我们现代社会结构的一部分，他们认识到并自发地承担起崇高的义务。
翻译原文：https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1953/13-n-j-145-0.html
 参考文献
【1】https://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=Publish:10.1048/Enu
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2022/title-1/section-1-1-5-1/
【2】徐彤武：《“外围团体”对2012年美国大选的影响》，载《美国研究》2012年第3期。
继续阅读
阅读原文