Non-fiction: Testimony of J. P. Morgan before the House Committee on Banking and Currency (Pujo Committee)

Context and purpose

The testimony records John Pierpont Morgan's sworn appearance before the House Committee on Banking and Currency (the Pujo Committee) during the 1912 investigation into the concentration of financial power in the United States. The committee sought to uncover whether a "money trust" of bankers and financiers exercised undue control over industry, credit, and public policy through interlocking directorates, stock ownership, and informal influence. Morgan, as the leading financier of his era and head of J. P. Morgan & Co., was called to explain his firm's relationships with major corporations and other financial institutions.
The hearings formed part of a wider Progressive Era effort to increase transparency and curb perceived monopolistic and opaque corporate practices. The transcript captures the clash between congressional inquiries driven by populist anxieties about concentrated wealth and the private banking elite's insistence on the propriety and necessity of their business methods.

Key exchanges and demeanor

Morgan's testimony is notable less for dramatic revelations than for the tone and tactics he used. He frequently answered narrowly, insisting he was not a corporate manager and that banks acted as advisors and financiers rather than as controlling owners. When pressed about specific connections or influences, he often professed ignorance of details, emphasized the limits of his personal involvement, and resisted characterizations that implied centralized or conspiratorial control.
That cautious, sometimes evasive posture frustrated committee members and the public and became emblematic of the contrast between elite financial culture and rising demands for accountability. The record shows Morgan as a man who relied on reputation, discretion, and informal networks rather than explicit claims of domination, yet those very networks were what investigators sought to map and regulate.

Interlocking directorates and business practices

A central focus of questioning concerned interlocking directorates, instances where the same individuals or firms sat on multiple corporate boards, and whether those ties concentrated economic power. Morgan defended the practice as a means to coordinate financing and to ensure competent governance, arguing that independence of boards and legal constraints checked any unilateral control. He described J. P. Morgan & Co.'s role as arranger and adviser, stressing fiduciary duties and client-driven services rather than exercises of direct corporate command.
Nevertheless, the testimony illustrates the breadth of Morgan's connections: his firm's name and representatives appeared across the governance of railroads, trusts, and industrial corporations. Even when denying deliberate centralization, Morgan's answers reveal how much influence flowed through informal authority, board appointments, and the circulation of credit, lending credence to concerns about concentrated financial reach.

Public reaction and legislative impact

The perception of evasiveness amplified public distrust of Wall Street and fed Progressive calls for reform. The Pujo Committee's broader inquiry compiled extensive documentary evidence and testimony that depicted dense networks of control and coordination among banks, trust companies, and industrial boards. Those findings contributed to a political atmosphere favoring regulatory change, banking reform, and enhanced antitrust enforcement.
While Morgan's testimony alone did not determine policy, it became a touchstone for debates that helped energize reforms in the following years, including the creation of a more centralized banking system and increased scrutiny of corporate concentration. The hearings intensified pressure on lawmakers to create institutional checks on private financial power.

Legacy and historical significance

The testimony stands as a revealing portrait of early 20th-century finance: a world governed as much by personal relationships, reputation, and informal arrangements as by contract and public markets. Historians view Morgan's appearance as illustrative of the limits of private governance in the face of democratic accountability and as a catalyst for regulatory modernization. The record remains a primary source for understanding how financial elites defended their role and how Progressive reformers translated public concern into lasting institutional change.