The Hawaiian gazette., 1905-01-24

have their roots elsewhere. But mucl
would he gained by a remedy Of cor
poration abuses and II IL well 60 hav,
thorough discussion OF any plan ema
mating from puzzle authority"
chief Justice james r. Mitchell o.
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
speaking I'm regard to federal control ol
corporations. says that "the fedora
| power has already been stretched far
beyond its proper boundaries in such
matters. and that such n proposition
would be IAN invasion OF the principle
of state rights" John w. Griggs, at
torney-generai in President Mckinley's
Cabinet and n 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 unwise 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
! some States have unwise laws on that
subject. An ingenious advocate of CEN
tralizaton could probably find some
clause of the federal Constitution which
could be twisted into service as the
basis of 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 1t improbable that
IL in one man."
In 1896 Henry II. 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 ID. Rockefeller and John ID. Ar
chibald, at that time, also favored fed
eral legislation under which corpor-
atoms may be created and regulated.
Commissioner Garfield" says Brad
streets, takes clear ground upon one
crucial point, namely, that interstate
corporations should be subjects of fed
eral not of state regulation. This point
once established, the way will be rem
dered easier for a decision as to which
of the alternative methods considered,
or IL not either of these, what other,
should be adopted and when the time
should be ripe for the putting in force
of the system of regulation decided on"
The Wall Street Journal notes that
Commissioner Garfied's recommen-
dalton has met with much favor among |
of railroad and Industrial |
The corporations must !
choose between government regulation ,
by the forty-five States and government !
regulation by the central authority of .
the federal Government says The Jour
nal, and it adds: THE choice must be |
that of a federal regulation, for that |
will be uniform over the whole country |
and of a higher and more equitable |
standard. Insurance companies have, !
by bitter experience, come round to
this view and are now working for fed
eral control. The principle is exactly |
the same in it's application to railroads |
and industrial corporations" James b. |
Dill, an expert in the law of Industrial
and a strong advocate of (
federal Incorporation, thinks that Gar !
held's remedy is too mild. His impress !
sion Is that the scheme is wrong be- !
cause 1t starts reform at the top, in
stead of at the bottom, where 1t should |
begin. He argues that the state cor
poration laws, being at variance and,
as rule, inadequate. if not actually
bad, 1t would be unwise to expect that
anything short of federal incorpor-
alton law would accomplish what is
desired.