The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-02-12
SPoONER is OPPOSED.

We arc sorry to see that Ex. x.Seautor
John c. Spooner is of the opinion that
the Federal incorporation bill, as urged
by the President and as introduced in
Congress. is unconstitutional. Mr..
Spooncr stands very high as an ex-
FOUNDER of the Constitution. His opin-
ions on the construction of that great
instrument arc entitled TO respect. And
yet others who are strong constitutional
lawyers, including the President him
self in that category, and Attorney Gen
eral Wickersham, believe thoroughly in
the validity of the proposed statute
1t may be. as Mr.. Spooner says, that
it is new theory that Congress has
the power to create corporations that
can enter State to do business whether
the State wants them or not But after
all, while that may be a new theory
we doubt if any State would object TO
the incoming of National corporation
to do business within its borders. Ger.
tainly it is a far more logical PROPOSE
tion that Congress may incorporate
than that a State is authorized to enact
such corporation. The enactment bv
the State Of charter for corporation
is of course a perfectly valid PROPOSE
ton, so far as the doing of business
by that corporation within that State
is concerned, but why should the State
be conceded the right to extend the
provisions of its law and empower the
corporation whose life is contained
within that charter, into other States.
The laws of one State are not eff.
fective in another; and while it has
been the custom to allow corporations
a charter in one State to do business
in other States, there is nothing logical
about it, and there is nothing impera.
tive upon any State to allow concern
business within its boundaries. Utah
for instance, allows a number of cor.
porations chartered in other States to
do business here. This. however. is in
effect to allow the statute of each of
the States so chartering a corporation
fective in Utah. 1t certainly will be
no greater hardship for the State of
Utah to allow a corporation chartered
by Congress to do business here than
to allow n corporation chartered in New
York, Connecticut. Kentucky, or some
other State to come here and transact
it's business under the authority con.
ferrcd by the State of its incorporation
So far as that is concerned. if it is a |
question simply of allowing a corpora.
tion to iptrude within the State, there
can surely be no greater (we could say
even less) objection to the intruding of |
a national Incorporation or corpora.
tion created by another State.
With respect to the other point made
by Mr. Spooncr that it will be impos-
sible for the National Government to
supervise affectively, the 100000 cor
porations in the United States, it may |
be said that il this is an objection at !
all. it applies quite as forcibly to the
present corporation tax law. as to ma
tional Incorporation. In fact ii applies
a great deal more strongly. because un-
der national incorporation act no
special supervision would be necessary,
as long as the corporations held to the
terms of their charters. But under the
present corporation tax law. there is
the very espionage in supervision that
Mr.. Spooner declares to be unconstitu.