New-York tribune., 1907-01-26
FEDERAL CONTROL.
John ID. RockefeLIe~s Son-in-LaSo
Writes against 1t.

The Macmillan Company yesterday published a
volume Of modest size. entitled Federal Power
over Carriers and Corporations" by Mr.. z. Par
malice Prentice The fact that Mr.. Prentice Is
a son-in-law OF John D. Rockefeller and the added
fact that he holds that there is or should be
practically no federal power carriers and cor
porations. impart interest TO the book that It
would perhaps hardly otherwise possess. There
seems to be in this association Of circumstances,
indeed, an almost inevitable suggestion OF cause
and effect. There is. of course intention TO IN
innate that Mr.. Prentices intense convictions on
the subject of the wrongful exercise OF federal
power over carriers and corporations in any way
influenced him in the choice of Mr.. Rockefeller for
a father-in-law
On the other hand It may be pure coincidence
that the author, who is also lawyer holds
brief in his treatise for the views OF the Standard
OH magnate Even so, It is not uninteresting to
follow the line of his argument revealing. as IL
does, the old bedrock rights Interpretation OF
the Constitution. to which the great corporate in
terests Of the country reverted in the effort
to protect themselves from federal interference and
restriction
Mr.. Prentice opens his book with a chapter
local Self-Government and Personal Liberty in
which he takes for his text De Tocqueville's words
in his letter 10 Cabell: Those who dread tho IL
cense Of the mob and those who fear absolute
power ought alike to desire the gradual Develop
ment of personal liberties. centralized
administration is fit only 10 enervate the nations
democratic nations most likely to fall beneath
the yoke of centralized administration" Enars-
ing this idea and applying IT, Mr.. Prentice
writes:
For many years, after the adoption of the Con
sttutiOn local jealousies, not only for state gov
ernments. but also for smaller municipal corpora
tions was such that apprehensions of Capitalization
Very recently all this seems to have changed.
personal rights have given way to popular move
ment for the extension of federal jurisdiction
Mr. Prentice then goes back to the days of the
Constitutional Convention. 1887, in his effort to
determine exactly what the trainers Of that doc
ument intended 1t to mean. He comes to the con-
cluson that the Constitutional Convention did
not intend to give Congress power to tax or 70 pro-
hibit commerce among the states. and that the
nature OF the power upon which il is sought 20
found such Jurisdiction fails 10 support IT"
The next two chapters taken UP with a con-
sideration OF the decisions Of the Supreme Court
upon the constitutional questions involved in cases
bearing the subject Of interstate commerce In
the Of Gibbons agt Ogden. the author quotes
from the opinion Of Chief Justice Marshall who
held that the right Of Intercourse between state
and state was not granted by the Federal Con-
stitution. but "derves its source from those laws
whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man
throughout the world
THAT is IN other words" writee Mr. Prentice
Interpreting the Chief Justices interpretation. the
right to engage IN interstate commerce is part OK
the inalienable liberty which. according 20 tho
Constitution ITSELF whose protection is one
OF the chief purposes for which government Is in
sututed. Political theories have changed since this
decision" he admits. but adds. but the Constitu-
ton remains. and the rights which Il was formed
20 protect still have it's assurance"
The author having intrenched Interstate com
merce behind higher law than the Constitution.
traces the insidous attacks made upon It by Con-
gress. IN chapter entitled. Extension Of Federal
Power Over Carriers" He follows this with a
chapter Federal Incorporation"
This chapter he ends with the statement that
'the authority 10 charter mercantile companies 20
engage in commerce among the states is power
which not granted by the Constitution, which
Congress has never claimed and which fnds no
support IN constitutional history
The Sherman Antitrust act was Mr. Prentice
declares. the adoption by Congress OF tho policy
OF the common law to the fun extent OF federal
Jurisdiction. and both the common law on the sub
ject and the extent OF the federal power we'll
defined ana understood He adds. however:
With the conception Of federal jurisdiction so
adopted by all departments Of c sovsTnment admin.
strettve officers during the last few years have not
present administration Of the sherman act The
Ds5 6r T a no cbsnTa o OF n6cv 5s Of
government, nevertheless has been directed TO eX-
upon the Statute and to make ~ federal courts TIE
instrument to establish this new body oi law.
Summing up his conclusions Mr Prentice writes:
The sTea! forces which gqds the dsveloRmens q
communities 10 each other and 70 government are
beyond control OF statute. OF judicial precedent OF
! public opinion itself We cannot now establish
laws suitable the social organization which shall
| follow US nor foresee the forms coming society
| may assume. One thing. however may expect
| that the relations of individuals and classes will
grow closer, that their mutual dependence wifi In
| crease, and that the functions OF government will
| extend individual activities TO n greater
/ tent than before.
To turn over 20 a single legislative body the vast
intricacies Of social life throughout tho country
that it may prepare system applicable to all CON
and in the tenements OF New York-is not TO hasten
| the adoption OF better methods, but place i'm
portant governmental powers I'm the hands OF those
who can exercise them with the greatest difficulty
| and with tho least knowledge Of local conditions
It is In effect, far concerns vital inter
ests to abandon the effort for good municipal and
state government and for all to intrust local
| fortune and prosperity 10 external authority.