"THE MARKETS: NATIONALIZATION OR CENTRALIZATION"
THE OPENING PAGES OF THIS SPEECH AND OTHERS, GIVING A PERSONAL IMPRESSION OF RAY GARRETT, JR., HAVE BEEN GRACIOUSLY PROVIDED BY HARVEY L. PITT.

An Address by
Ray Garrett, Jr., Chairman
Securities and Exchange Commission

Presented before
THE NEW YORK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
Hotel Commodore
March 20, 1975
New York City

When I became Chairman of the SEC, my family wondered what they were now supposed to call me, at least in public. When Henry Kissinger was asked this question after becoming Secretary of State, he was quick enough to respond., "Just call me Excellency." I was not. Instead I said, somberly, that I did not believe there was any law on the subject, but that the custom was to address all SEC Commissioners and similar government officials as "Honorable." I could have eadsily forgiven them a little whimsy on receiving this information. But the degree of their amusement was wholly uncalled for. As I tried to explain, the appellation is at best an expression of presumption and hope, and the user is not under oath.

The origins of this "honorable" business seem obscure, but I presume it was carried over from the judiciary, where it had been used from the time when the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. Unfortunately, it has not been carried over all the way. Trial laawyers d not seem to be able to phrase any legal argument without beginning, "Your honor ...." whether or not they re addressing a judge. The rest of us find this pretty tedious, but maybe it is a desirable habit or at least one with protective features. I do not know whether judges get pleasure from being constantly "your-honored," but at critical moments, they might get marked displeasure from not being. In any event, this does not happen to me or, I presume, other non-judicial government officials.

Wherever we got the term, we apply it so broadly that it lacks distinction and reflects poorly on our collective imagination. years ago, I read a delightful piece by some English writer attacking this subject. It was his thesis that the titles of civil officials in the Unitd Kingdom, as well as here, were colorless, and he thought we might borrow from the customs of the Church of England, which has "right reverends," "very right reverends," "most reverends," and so on. Or from other sectors of English official life, where the mayhor of a village is "His Worshiip" but the mayor of a city is "The Right Worshipful." (I wonder if Mayor Daley knows about that.) This has possibilities. We could have "The Right Regulatory Mr. Pollack," "The Most Meticulous Mr. Loomis," and so on.

Incidentally, I hope I have the rank right. I assume that "The Most" ranks "The Right," since seniority is very important to us. Without rigid adherence to the principle of seniority we would not know where to sit or in what order we should walk into a room, and there would be confusion and bafflement over who should assume the chores of presiding in the absence of the Chairman.

I should hasten to add that seniority has nothing to do with the weight given to our respective views. That is governed by more substantive factors, such as persistency, pig-headedness, and vocal power.

Returning to the matter of forms of address, however, I have never before pursued the subject in public, because it present certain dangers, and the search for accuracy might tempt some of our friends. For example, I might get introduced as "The Most Dilatory Mr. Garrtett," or something worse. So I am not sure that I want to contribute to the further weakening of the foundations of the Republic by inviting this sort of disrespect for government officials. We have enough of other sorts of disrespect. But speculating about the idea for awhile serves more or to some things I would like to say about the Commission and its relation to our capital markets.

First of all, as one of the independent Federal regulatory agencies, we re included in the current attack on regulation as an approprate governmental response to the problems of modern business. It was surely inevitable that the time wuld come for a revisionist approach to the whole idea.

We and our fellow creatures of the New Deal have always been subject to particular attacks from tie to time, either for challenges to policies being followed or suspected venality. Sometimes these have been healthy and needed correctives. The rules governing our formal procedures have been the subject of virtually continuous study, there being a permanent Administrative Conference concerned with these matters. Our combined functions of legislation, ajudication, and administration, cause us to occupy a curious niche in our Constitutional structure -- not clearly and for all purpose part of any one of our classical three branches of government -- and the search or struggle for a clearer definition of our proper slot in the scheme of things has been a recurrent reason for attention.

The present challenge, at least in some quarters, is broader and more fundamental. Regulation in general is being suspected as an undesirable encrustation upon our economy, doing more hrm than good by stifling competition, protecting inefficiency, and generally contributing to inflation, not just through rate-making policies, but by adding significantly to the cost of doing business. There have, of course, always been business executives who have held these views. For them to beome widespread in o ther circles, however, is new. It sometimes seems to be mostly function of time and generations. Just as revisionist history or major wars requires a generation of young historians who have no memory of the conflict, a revisionist view of the regulatory apparatus which, though not invented by the New Deal, achieved its present prominence during those days, requires a certain lapse or absence or memory of the propblems regulation was intended to solve. As the old evils fade from memory, the defects o the solution loom larger. Someone recently wrote, nothing helps nostalgiaa like a good wine and a bad memory. I would not accuse those who are rediscovering Adam Smith and the benefits of competition of indulging in good wine, but memories need refreshing from time to time....

back