The Chanute times. [volume] (Chanute, Kan.) 1897-1913, 1910-01-14

| and that they were denounced in this ACT
not because of their intrinsic iihl INN re-
| ity but because of the dangerous re-
| suits toward which they tended, the COL
centraton of industrial power IN tils
hands of the few, leading TO opp snna
| sion and injustice. In dealing, therefore
| with many of the men who nave useo
the methods condemned by the STATUS
for the purpose of maintaining proht-
| able business, we may well facilitate d
change by them in the method of do
| ing business, and enable them 10 prihs -
| back into the zone of lawrulness, Wltious
losing to the country the economy ~ u
| management by which, in our domestio
| trade the cost of production mas peen
materially lessened and in competition
with foreign manufacturers our loreis
trade has been greatly increased
Asks National Corporation Law.
81 therefore recommend the enactment
| by congress of a general law proVluIhs
| for the formation of corporations 10 en-
| gage in trade and commerce among tins
| states and with foreign nations, protect
| ing them from undue interference by u.
| states and regulating their actiVlties 50
as to prevent the recurrence. under ma ma
| tional auspices, of those abuses winch
| have arisen under state control. Sucn
law should provide for the Issue OF soouh
| of such corporations to an amount equal
| only to the cash paid in on the stock'
and If the stock be issued for properly
| then at a fair valuation ascertained un
| der approval and supervision OF Ieue Ell,
| authority after full and complete as
| closure Of all the facts pertaining to thu
| value of such property and the interest,"
| therein of the persons to whom IL 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 mn
| posed by the states within which 1t may
| be situated upon other similar property
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
| porations 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 enectlVe
agency in the creation of the great trusts
| and monopoies.
State Laws Conflict. a.
"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 shali
provide for the creation of national cor
| poratiOns to carry on a~legitimate busi-
| ness throughout the United States. The
| conflicting laws of the different states of
the union with respect to foreign corpora
lions make it difficult. If not impossible.
| for one corporation to comply with their
| requirements so as to carry on business
| in a number of different states.
ITO the suggestion that this proposal OF
| federal Incorporation for industrial com
| binations is intended to furnish them q
refuge in which to continue industrial
business under federal protection. 1t
| should be said that the measure contem-
| plated does not repeal the Sherman anti
| trust law and is not to be framed so as
| to permit the doing of the wrongs which
| It is the purpose of. that law to prevent,
| but only to foster continuance and ad-
| vance of the highest industrial efficiency
without permitting industrial abuses.
Such national incorporation law will
be opposed, first by those who believe
that trusts should be completely broken
up and their property destroyed; 1t VIII
be opposed, second, by those who doubt
the cOnstitutionality of such federal in
corporation and even II it is valid, object
to 1t as too great federal Capitalization.
1t will be opposed third. by those who
will insist that mere voluntary incor-
poration like this will not attract to its
assistance the worst of the Offenders
against the antitrust, statute and who
will therefore propose instead of It a sys-
tenn of compulsory licenses for all feder-
al corporations engaged in Interstate
business.
'Let us consider these objections in
their order. The government is now try
ing to dissolve some of these combina-
tons and 1t is not the intention of the
government to desist in the least degree
in its effort to end these combinations
which are to-day monopolizing the COM
merce of this country; that where 1t APP
pears that the acquisition and concen-
tration OF property go to the extent OF
creating a monopoly of substantially and
directly restraining interstate commerce,
II Is not the intention of the government
to permit this monopoly to exist under
federal incorporation or to transfer to
the protecting wing of the federal gov
ernmen of state corporation now vio-
lating the Sherman act. But it is not,
and should not be. the policy of the gov
eminent to prevent reasonable concen-
tration of capital which is necessary to
the economic development of manufac-
ture, trade and commerce.
May Doubt constitutlonality.
"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,
congress shall insist that II may provide
and authorize agencies to carry on that
commerce, II would seem to be within its
power, this has been distinctly affirmed
with respect to railroad companies doing
an Interstate business and Interstate
bridges. The power of Incorporation has
been 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
of goods across state boundaries and into
not be asserted? Indeed, II is the very
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 II may
be within the power of the federal gov
eminent to authorize the manufacturer OF
goods, is perhaps more open to discus
sion. though a recent decision of the su-
pTeme court would seem to answer-that
question In the affirmative.
THE third objection, that the worst Of
tenders will not accept federal incorpora-
ton. is easily answered. The DEGREES OF
injunction recently adopted in prosecu-
tons under the antitrust law are so
thorough and sweeping that the corpora
lions affected by them have but three
courses before them:
First, they must resolve themselves
into their component parts In the differ
ent states. with a consequent loss to
themselN es Of capital and effective organ
Azation and to the country of concen-
trated energy and enterprise; or second.
in defiance of the law and under some
secret trust they must attempt TO con-
tinue their business in violation OF the
federal statute. and thus incur the pen-
alties of contempt and bring on an in
evitable criminal prosecution of the indi-
viduals named in the decree and their as
sociates: or
Third. they must reorganize and ac-
cept in good faith the federal charter I |
suggest federal compulsory license law.
urged as substitute for federal incor-
poration law. is unnecessary except to |
reach that kind OF corporation which. by /
virtue of the considerations already adj |
vanced. viii take advantage voluntarily |