The Indianapolis journal., 1903-08-28

imposed by most OF the States on corpora
tons at the time of their incorporation and
Is In almost all States i'm some way graded
so as TO tax the small corporation at
higher rate than the large one. The first
million dollars pays a higher rate than
subsequent millions. In our judgment the
graduation should be continued. but IL
should be grading up instead of down.
We would leave perhaps, the first hum
dred thousand free and the first million
cheap and raise the rate with each sue
ceeding million. The United States Steel
Corporation has q capitalization of over
slow and easy enough to please the most
conservative and yet result in a taxation of
ten per cent on the last hundred millions
How long would the United States Steel
Corporation continue unoer that system of
taxation?
'Seeond-IVe can compel them to render
better and cheaper service. If the COM
bination of the Northern Pacific and the
Great Northern Railroads is great enough
public disaster to have warranted the at
tention which IL has attracted ii could have
been prevented much easier than by
hundred Sherman antitrust laws by single
United States statute that required any
corporation engaged in interstate commerce
TO reduce its rates fifty per cent. to and
from every point where competition has
been prevented by combination, merger,
common control or agreement. Congress
can enact that any corpora tion or individual
who engages in interstate commerce must
furnish its services or supply its goods at
lower rates wherever. by any combination.
competition is prevented than where compe-
tition Is left free.
enter the INDUSTRIAL field a producer and
restore the force of competition to its
former supremacy by becoming itself a
competitor of the great trusts
The report was signed by all the members
of the committee. consisting of Walter s.
Logan. Henry Budd. Gardiner Lathrop
George Whitelock and John Morris, jr.
THE DISCUSSION.
There was applause when Judge Logan
concluded the reading of the report. w. A.
Ketcham, of Indiana, requested that Judge
Hammond of Georgia, be asked to speak
resolution. was offered by Mr.. Busby. of
North Carolina. providing that thes report
by received and filed. accompanied by a
note that it did not express the views of
the association. Judge Hammond spoke
briefly. indorsing the report. saying that it
was most encouraging thing that a body
like the commerce committee had seen fit
to grapple with such a great question as In
Sustrial combinations.
William L. Royal. OF Richmond. Va. Of
fered substitute for the report paper,
the essential ideas of which were that the
Injury done the public by trusts was
through unreal competition; that is. the
giving away of goods 10 destroy weak
rivals or by seitlng goods below cost for
the same purpose Stop this. he said and
the trusts power for evil was ended. His
remedy was that Congress pass a law es-
tablshing corporation commission in
each State and Territory. having complete
authority. on complaint of any person that
his rival was trading dishonesty by Civ
ing away his goods, selling them below
cost for the purpose of destroying the COM
piainant. TO fine the offending corporation
To- such extent as would make il offer
Its goods for sale in fact instead of in
pretense IL IL chooses TO enter into trade
He found authority for this act I'm the COM
mcrce clause and the fourteenth amend
ment, but he recommended an amendment
to the Constitution. giving Congress power
by appropriate legislation to suppress and
10 prevent dishonest competition i'm trade
There was animated discussion over "A
motion TO table the report. There was great
excitement on the floor and finally In was
agreed that the report should be taken up
at the night session.
Tonight two hours were spent i'm
parliamentary wrangsing over the resolu-
tion. Finally resolution offered by r. n
Judson. of Missouri. directing that the re-
port be committed with instructions TO
the committee To report remedies for Illegal
combinations which threaten commercial
intercourse. was adopted This action is
regarded as victory for the party which
contends that the subject of trusts is an a n
proprate one for the American Bar Asso-
citation 10 consider.