The Spanish Fork press. [volume] (Spanish Fork, Utah) 1902-current, 1910-01-13


trust law we ought of course not 70
forget that that law makes uhlaNttuS
methods of carrying on business MI
before it's passage We're regarded as W.
dence of business sugacity ana success,
and that they were denounced IN tlils ~
not because OF their intrinsic lniilo co.
sTilts toward which they tended, the COIL
centration Of industrial power IN .ne
hands of the Few Leaning " Opgs
sion and Injustice. In dealing, theleIotSi
with many of the men who nave useu
the methods condemned by the sIaeutte
for the purpose Of maintaining ploh.
able business, we may wen iaclllaIe
change by them in the method OF 40.
ing business, and enable them 10 priinis -
back into the zone of lawtulness. Wi.n"uss
losing to the country the economy ~
management by which, in our uoIliSstio
trade the cost of production mas D9en
materially lessened, and In compeptii on
with foreign manufacturers our lotei5h
trade has been greatly Increased.
Asks National Corporation Law.
81 therefore recommend the enactment
by congress of n general law provldlng
for the formation of corporations TO en-
gage in trade and commerce among me
states and with foreign nations, protect
ing them from undue interference py Tue
states and regulating their activities 80
as to prevent the recurrence, under ma
tional auspices, of those abuses wllch
have arisen under state control. Such
law should provide for the issue OF STOCK
of such corporationas to an amount equal
and IL the stock be issued for property,
then at Il. fair valuation ascertained un1
der approval and supervision of federal
authority after n 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 II Is
proposed to Issue stock in payment OF
such property 1t should subject the real
and personal property only OF such cor
! poratious to the same taxation as I'M
| posed by the states within which 1t may
no
| 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
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
I 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 IL is essen
| TIM that the national government shall
| 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
| tons make 1t difficult, IL 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 a
| 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 as
! to permit the doing of the wrongs which
| It Is the purpose of that law to prevent
| but only to foster a continuance and adj
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 will
| be opposed, second by those who doubt
| the constitutionalty of such federal in
| corporation and even if 1t is valid, object
| to il as too great federal Capitalization
1t will be opposed, third, by those who
will insist that a mere voluntary incor-
| poraton like this will not attract to its
| assistance the worst of the offenders
| against the antitrust statute and who
| viii therefore propose instead of 1t a sys-
| ten 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 comblna-
| tions and it is not the intention of the
government to desist in the least degree
in it's effort to end these combinations
| which are to-day monopolizing the COM
| merce of this country; that where it APP
pears that the acquisition and concen-
| tratiou OF property go to the extent Of
! creating "A monopoly of substantially and
| directly restraining interstate commerce,
| 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 ii is not,
and should not he, 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 ConstitutionaIity.
"second-There are those who doubt the
| constituuonality of such federal incorpor-
| alton. The regulation of interstate and
| foreign commerce is certainly conferred
IN the fullest measure upon congress, and
| If for the purpose of securing in the most
thorough manner that kind OF regulation
congress shall insist that it 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
foreign countries, may the same power
not be asserted? Indeed, it 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 t.
the carrying on of that commerce it ma,
be within the power of the federal gov.
eminent to authorize the manufacturer OF
goods, is perhaps more open to discus
sion, though recent decision of the su.
preme court would seem to answer thai
question in the affirmative
The third objection. that the worst Of
Tenders will not accept federal incorpora
ton, Is easily answered. The DEGREES o,
| Injunction recently adopted in prosecu
tons under the antitrust law are 81
thorough and sweeping that the corpora
tons affected by them have but thre,
! courses before them
First they must resolve themselves
into their component parts In the differ
emit states, with a consequent loss I,
themselves of capital and effective organ
izatiop and to the country of concen
trated energy and enterprise; or second
in defiance of the law and under som
secret trust they must attempt to con
tinue their business in violation OF IN
federal statute, and thus incur the pen
altes of contempt and bring on an in
eyitable criminal prosecution of the indi
viduals named in the decree and their as
sociates: or
Third, they must reorganize and &C
cept In good faith the federal charter
suggest federal compulsory license law