The Montgomery tribune., 1910-01-14

&'1n considering violations of the anti
i trust law we ought, of course, not to
forget that that law makes unlawful,
before its passage were regarded as EVIL
dence of business sagacity and success,
that shsy in 1hs I
'lity, but because OF. tho dangerous re-
suits toward which ,y they tended, the con. on
S'op Sands Of Oh the nS few leading I9wo 70 oppress
sion and injustice. I'm dealing, therefore,
with many Of the men, who have used
for the purpose ,of maintaining a profit
| able business, we may well facilitate q
| change by them in the method of do.
back into the zone of lawfulhess, without
losing to the country the economy Of
management by which,. in our domestic
trade the cost of production has been
materially lessened, and in competition
| with foreign manufacturers our foreign
trade has been greatly increased.
Asks National Corporation Law.
II therefore recommend the enactment
by congress OF general law providing
gage in trade and conVlerce among the
states and with foreign nations, protect
ing them from undue interference by the
states and regulating their activities so
as to prevent the recurrence, under ma
tional auspices, of those abuses which
aW sbons aish npdWds state sor
of such corporationas to an amount equal
only to the cash paid in on the stock;
then at a fair valuation ascertained un-
der approval and supervision Of federal
authority after full and complete dis
closure of all the facts pertaining to the
value Of such property and the interest
therein of the persons to whom 1t is
proposed to issue stock in payment of
such property. 1t should subject the real
and personal property only OF such cor
porations to the same taxation as i'm
posed by the states within which 1t may
nfh hnr ofr In, a,Nttr
located therein, and 1t should require
such corporations to file full and com
plete reports of their operations with the
department of commerce and labor at
regular intervals Corporations organized
under this act should be prohibited from
acquiring and holding stock in other cor
poratfons Except for special reasons upon
approval by the proper federal author
ity), thus avoiding. the creation, under
national auspices, of the holding company
with subordinate corporations in different
states which has been such an effective
agency in the creation Of the great trusts
and monopolies.
State Laws Conflict.
IF the prohibition of the antitrust act
against combinations in restraint of trade
Is to be effectively enforced, 1t is essen
tial that the national government shall
pppeide ppstdo Iof the creation OF national cor
ness throughout the United States. The
conflicting laws of the different states of
tions make it difficult IL not Impossible,
for one corporation to comply with their
requirements so as to carry on business
in number of different states.
ITO the suggestion that this proposal of
federal incorporation for industrial com
binations is intended to furnish them a
business under federal protection. 1t
should be said that the measure contem-
plated does not repeal the Sherman anti
TO permit the doing of the wrongs which
II is the purpose of that law to prevent,
but only to foster continuance and adj
vance or the highest industrial efficiency
without permitting industrial abuses. i
Such national Incorporation law will
be opposed, first, by those who believe
TN tnat 1T trusts it should be completely broken
be opposed, second by those who doubt
the consttutionalty of such federal in
to It as too great federal contamination.
1t will be opposed, third, by those who
VIII insist that a mere voluntary incor-
assistance the y worst Of Of the re'ah offenders nc r.,
against the ANTITRUST statute and who
viii therefore propose instead of II a sy3-
tenn of compulsory licenses for all feder-
business.
Let us consider these objections la
ing to dissolve some Of these comblna-
tons and 1t is not the intention of the
government to desist IN the least degree
which are to-day monopolizing the COM
mcrce of this country; that where 1t ap-
pears that the acquisition and concen-
creating monopoly OF substantially and
directly restraining interstate commerce.
IT 1t is nt not the M intention Of the government
federal incorporation or to transfer ia
the protecting wing Of the federal gov
lating the Sherman act. But It is not
and should not be, the policy of the gov
ernment to prevent reasonable concen-
fntS 80 ttnI t-l.
the economic development of manufac.
ture, trade and commerce.
May Doubt Constitutionaity.
"Second--There are those who doubt the
constitutionality of such federal incorpor- |
alton. The regulation OF interstate and |
foreign commerce is certainly conferred |
IN the fullest measure upon congress, and |
II for the purpose of securing in the most |
thorough manner that kind of regulation, |
shall insist that it may provide |
commerce. it would seem to be within its |
power, this has been distinctly affirmed |
an interstate business and interstate
bridges The power of Incorporation has
peen exercised by congress and upheld
by, the supreme court in this regard.
Why, then, with respect to any other
form of interstate commerce like the sale
or goods across state boundaries and into
not be asserted? Indeed. it is the yery
fact that they carry on interstate COM
merce that makes these great Industrial
concerns subject to federal prosecution
and control. How far as incidental to
the carrying on of that commerce it may
be within the power of the federal gov
to authorize the manufacturer of
goods, is perhaps more open to discus
sion. though a recent decision of the su-
preme court would seem to answer that
question in the affirmative
The third objection, that the worst Of
lenders VIII not accept federal incorpora-
lion, is easily answered. The DEGREES of
Injunction recently adopted In prosecu-
thorough and sweeping that the corpora.
tons affected by them have but three
courses before them:
FIRST, they must resolve themselves
nto their component parts in the differ
ent states, with consequent loss to
themselves of capital and effective organ
latlon and to the country of cnncen- |