The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-01-21

! monopoly power in this country as
tariff discrimination and the pos session
by purchase of exclusive patent rights
No form or method OF incorporation or
| supervision would eradicate evils which
/ have their roots elsewhere. But much
would be gained by a remedy of cor
poration abuses, and it is well to have
a thorough discussion of any plan ema-
mating from public authority
Chief Justice James T. Mitchell. of
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
speaking in regard to federal control of
corporations. says that the federal
power has already been stretched far
beyond it's proper boundaries in such
matters; and that such a proposition
would be IAN invasion of the principle
of state rights" John w. Griggs, at
Cabinet and a former governor of New
Jersey, declares that "by such means
almost every right of the States can
be destroyed" and imperial power
given to the federal Government. He
says:
There are many subjects as to
which public injury arises by reason
of unwfse and diversified state legis-
lation. Marriage and divorce laws may
be instanced. But no one yet has pro-
posed that the President shall be given
the power to license marriages because
!,
subject An ingenious advocate of cen
tralization could probably find some
clause of the federal Constitution which
could be twisted into service as the
ba. is of a law of Congress which would
regulate marriage and divorce.
The power involved in this proposed
system is so vast, so absolute, and so
paternal as to render it improbable that /
self-governing people will ever vest
il in one man."
In 1896 Henry H. Rogers, of the +,
Standard Oil Company, declared be- |
fore the industrial commission that
the Constitution ought to be amended
so that federal charters can be granted
on some such plan as the English.
John D. Rockefeller and John D. Ar
chibald, at that time, also favored fed !
eral legislation under which corpor-
ations may be created and regulated.
Commissioner Garfield" says Brad
crucial point, namely, that interstate
should be subjects of fed
eral not of state regulation. This point
once established, the way will be rem
iered easier for decision as to which
Of the alternative methods considered,
Or if not either of these, what other,
should be adopted, and when the time
should be ripe for the putting in force
If the system of regulation decided on
The Wall Street Journal notes that {
Garfield's reeommen- ,
managers of railroad and industrial
The corporations must
hoose between government regulation
" the forty-five States and government
equation by the central authority of
he federal Government says The Jour-
lal, and it adds: 1.-The choice must be
hat of a federal regulation, for that
will be uniform over the whole country
md of higher and more equitable
standard. Insurance companies have, i
~ bitter experience, come round to y
his view and are now working for fed 6
raj control. The principle is exactly [
he same in its application to railroads
md industrial corporations" James B. Y
Dill, an expert in the law of industrial '
corporations and a strong advocate of {
ederal Incorporation, thinks that Gar s
ield's remedy is too mild. His impress
ion is that the scheme is wrong be- c
,ause it starts reform at the top, in /
stead of at the bottom, where it should {
1egin. He argues that the state cor
ooration laws, being at variance and, !
Is a rule, inadequate, if not actually '
pad, it would be unwise to expect that {
short of a federal incorpor-
alton law would accomplish what is {
desired. +