The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1902-03-14
NATIONAL LAW
FOR THE TRUSTS
Corporation Lawyer Outlines
Necessary Legislation.
STATE LAWS NOT UNIFORM
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. RESULT
BECAUSE OF DISCREPANCIES.
STATE LAWS NOT UNIFORM
Especial to The HeraldJ


n AMBRIDGE. Mass, March 15.-At
Harvard university James B. Dill,
the well known corporation law
yer Of New York, discussed for an
hour this afternoon the necessity of
having national laws to govern trusts
or great industrial combinations" Be
sides the members Of the Harvard
Economic society, the address attract
ed a large assemblage OF visitors in
terested in the questions growing out
Of the antitrust litigation before the
United States supreme court
Mr.. Dill. in opening, made the points:
First, that the best intelligence of the
country favored the adoption of ma
tional principles with respect TO cor
pOIate measures; second, that history
showed that in instances where inter
state warfare had affected trade and
commerce unfavOrabiy. federal as
sumption Of the matters in dispute had
frequently resulted. and, third. that
whenever a force affecting the welfare
of the country at large has been found
TO have OutgrOWn the sWaddlIng
clothes Of the express powers Of the
constitution" and entitled to the pro
lection of q national law. the American
people had always OverTiden mere
technicauties and taken unto them
selves the requisite authority under
the implied powers of the constitution.
Saying he accepted the term trust
TO signify a corporate aggrega-
ton engaged in other than merely To-
cal business, and not confined in its
operations to the state Of its creation, '
he insisted that the trust" was ma
tionaI in extent and an integral part
Of the best growth and financial devel-
opment Of the country.
State Laws Not Uniform.
Present state legislation tended TO
lack of uniformity. to diversity. and TO
direct antagOnism. ''CharteT-granting
states are so shaping their corporate
/ legislation" added Mr. Dill, That their
charters will be a salable product %
other than their own citizens More
than this. they are permitting those Of
other states who VIII come to them
for charters to do things which they
deny their own citizens. The state Of
New York today forbids the Organiza-
ton Of transportation, railroad, and
what is commonly known as quasi
public corporations. TO be organized
under any other than the particular
law providing for such corporations,
with its restrictions and safeguards
/ Nevertheless, that state has before it
today bill making it lawful 20 form
I a corporation for the business OF con-
structing, maintaining and operating a
railroad. telephone or telegraph line
under the business corporations law,
provided all operations Of these COM
panies shall be carried on wholly be-
ycnd its borders. In other words New
York is assuming 10 grant powers TO
corporations to carry into effect out
side the state that it wiz not permit
TO be exercised within its own terri
tory.
Further. Mr.. Dill contended that
/ state legislation for revenue was
most pernicious IN tendency, since II
the state as a whole was for sale, the
moral example Of the state tended TO
make legislators individually for sale
Advocates National Jurisdiction.
Mr.. Dill contended that the power for
good legislation affecting trusts was
Crippled by the lack Of national juris-
dIctiOu Each state leEislated for it.
self. in disregard of the national good.
] The result was confusion and frequent
conflict between federal and state stat
utes. Americans have not as yet begun
| to realize, declared Mr. Dill the
force and power of these aggregations
| Of capital. Viewed on the one hand
from the standpoint Of uDd0ubted ad-
vantage to the country. certain in
/ telIigent people are inclined 10 do away
with all legal restrictions up0n the
growth and progress Of great orgariza-
tons Others. realizing the dangers
1 which Of necessity accompany power
OF any kind and which. when united
| in combina tons. present. If uncon-
troIled. more than menace TO our
country. are inclined to re9ress the
trust movement in every possible way
The safe method, 3IT. Dill thought, was
not in abolisning trusts, but in prop
eriy applying the principles they rep
resented. The basis OF discussion re-
specting the legal control o. combina-
tions was not first utility and then con-
tfol. but utilization and eoatrol pari
passU-
Mr. Dill then urged the passage Of a