The Iuka vidette. (Iuka, Miss.) 1894-1912, 1910-01-13

| real ana personal property only OF such
| corporations to the same taxation as Inn
| posed by the states within which II may
be situated upon other similar property
located therein, and II should require
such corporations to file full and COM
plete reports of their operations with tho
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 COM
pany with subordinate corporations In
dlnerent states which has been such an
effective agency In the creation OF the
great trusts and monopolies.
III the prohibition of the antitrust act
against combinations In restraint OF
trade is to be effectively enforced, IL Is
essential that the national government
shall provide for the creation of national
corporations to carry on a Legitimate
business throughout the United States
me conflicting laws of the different
states of the union with respect to for
| eign corporations make II difficult. IL not
impossible. for one corporation to comply
| with their requirements SO as to carry
on business In a number Of different
states
To 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 IL
| 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 whfcn
1t is the purpose OF that law to prevent,
but only to foster a continuance and ad-
vance OF the highest Industrial efficiency
without permitting Industrial abuses.
Sure to Meet Opposition.
Such n national incorporation law viii
| be opposed, first by those who believe
that trusts should be completely broken
up and their property destroyed. IT VIII
be opposed. second. by those who DOUBT
| the constitutonality Of such federal IN
corporation and even II 1t Is valid. obJect
to II as too great federal Capitalization
1t will be opposed, third, by those who
Will insist that mere voluntary moor
poration like this will not attract to its
assistance the worst OF the onenosrs
against the antitrust statute and who
will therefore propose instead of 1t sys-
tenn of compulsory licenses for all FED
eral corporations engaged In Interstate
business.
LEI us consider these objections in their
order The government Ii now trying 10
dissolve some of these combinations ana
1t is not the intention Of the government
to desist in the least degree In It's eHore
to end these combinations which are To-
day monopolizing the commerce OF TINS
country; that where 1t appears that the
acquisition and concentration of property
go to the extent OF creating monopoly
of substantially and directly restraining
interstate commerce, 1t Is not the tnten-
ton of the government to permit TINS
monopoly to exist under federal incor-
poration or to transfer to the protecting
wing Of the federal government of
state corporation now violating the Sher-
man act But IL Is not. and should NOT
be, the policy of the government to pre-
vent reasonable concentration of capital
which is necessary to the economic devei-
opment of manufacture. trade and COM
merce. This country has shown power
of economic production that has aston
ished the world. and has enabled US to
compete with foreign manufacturers In
many markets. 1t should be the care OF
the government to permit such concen-
tration OF capital while keeping open the
avenues of individual enterprise, and the
| opportunity for a man or corporation
| with reasonable capital to engage in
| business If we would maintain our
| present business supremacy, we should
| give to industrial concerns an oppor-
| tunity to organize or to concentrate their
| legitimate capital in federal corpora
| tion and to carry on their large business
| within the lines of the law.
May Doubt consttutionaiity.
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
IL 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, IL 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. 1t is the very
fact that they carry on Interstate conn
merce that makes these great Industrial
concerns subject to federal prosecution
and control How far as incidental to
the carrying on of that commerce 1t 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 SUI
preme court would seem to answer that
question In the affirmative.
Even those who are willing to concede
that the supreme court may sustain such
federal Incorporation are inclined to OPP
pose it on the ground Of its tendency to
the enlargement of the federal power at
the expense Of the power of the state.
II is a sufficient answer to this argument
to say that no other method can be sug-
gested which offers federal protection on
the one hand and close federal supervi-
sion on the other OF these great organf-
cations that are in fact federal because
they are as wide as the country and are
entirely unlimited in their business by
state lines. Nor Is the Capitalization OF
federal power under this act likely to be
excessive. Only the largest corporations
would avail themselves Of such law. be-
cause the burden of complete federal SUI
pervfsion and control that must certainly
be imposed to accomplish the purpose of
the incorporation would not be accepted
by an ordinary business concern The
third objection. that the worst Offenders
will not accept federal Incorporation. In
easily answered. The DEGREES OF injunc-
ton recently adopted in prosecutions I'M
der the antitrust law are so thorough
and sweeping that the corporations AZ
fected Sy 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
themselves of capital and effective organ