The Ordway new era., 1910-01-14


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 authof-
ity), thus avoiding the creation. under
national auspices. of tho holding COM
pany with subordinate corporations In
different states which has been such an
effective agency In tho creation OF the
great trusts and monopolles.
II the prohibition of the antitrust act
against combinations in restraint OF
trade 10 to DO effectively enforced. II 10
essential that the national government
corporations to carry on lesitimats
business throughout the United States.
Tho conflicting laws OF the dinerens
states of the union with respect 20 tor
eiGn corporations mako It difficult. II NOT
impossible. for one corporation to comply
with their requirements so as TO- carry
on business in . number OF dinereht
states.
To tho suggestion that this proposal OF
federal incorporation for Industrial COM
binntions is intended to furnish tnam
refuge In which to continue industHst
business under federal protection. ~
should be said that the measure assure, eon.e .nai-
plated does not repeal the Sherman anu
trust law and Ia not to be framed 20 y
to permit the doing OF the wrongs wh,c"
II is the purpose OF that law to prevent
vance Of the highest Industrial efficiency
without permitting industrial abuses.
Sure to Meet Opposition.
Such a national Incorporation law wiz
be opposed. first. by those VINO oeneve
that trusts should be completely broken
I'D and their property destroyed: II wiz
be opposed. second. by those VINO uouoS
tho constitutionnlity of such fcdera. In
corporation and even lf II IL Vhhu. ooJeos
to II as too great federal centrnhzaun.
II will be opposed. third. by those VINO
will insist that a mere voluntary iheos
pora ton like this will not attract 10 Ne
assistance the worst or the one
against tho antitrust statute ana who
will therefore propose instead OF u sy.-
tenn of compulsory licenses for all tea-
erai corporations engaged IN 'hters'A
business.
order. The government Is now trying 70
dissolve some OF these combinations aho
II Is not the intention OF the soVerhmens
to desist in the least degree IN us eHors
to end these combinations which are 20
day monopoiixins the commerce OF tnis
country; that where It appears that ths
acquisition and concentration OF properly
70 to the extent OF creating monopoIy
Of substantially and directly restraining
Interstate commerce. It Is not the inten-
tion of the government to permit TINS
monopoly to exist under federal 'ncor-
poration or to transfer to Che protecting
wing of the federal government OF
state corporation now violating the Sher-
man act But II Is not. and shouid NOT
be. the policy Of the government 10 pre-
vent reasonable concentration OF capNa'
which Is necessary to the economic deVei-
opment of manufacture. trade and COM
merce. This country has shown power
OF economic production that mas aston
ished tho world. and has enabled us -
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
l H-~
with reasonable capital to engage In
business. II we would maintain our
present business supremacy. we shouid
give to Industrial concerns an oppor-
tunity to organize or to concentrate theif
| legitimate capital in federal corpora
| tion ind to carry on their large business
within the lines Of the law.
May Doubt constitutIonaiity.
second-There are those who doubt the
constitutionality of such federal incorpor-
| alton. The regulation Of Interstate and
foreign commerce In 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 1t may provide
and authorize agencies to carry on that
commerce. 1t 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 inserted? Indeed. 1t 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
tho carrying on OF that commerce 1t may
be within tho power of the federal gov
ernment to authorize the manufacturer OF
goods. is perhaps more open to discus
sion. though a recent decision OF the
preme court would seem to answer that
question In the affirmative.
Even those who are willing to concsds
that the supreme court may sustain such
federal incorporation are inclined to op-
pose It on the ground Of Its tendency to
the enlargement Of the federal power at
the expense OF the power OF the state.
1t is u sunlcient answer to this argument
to say that no other method can be suR-
gested which offers federal protection on
the one hand and close federal supervi-
sion on the other of these great organi-
cations that are in fact federal because
they are wide 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 n law be-
cause the burden of complete federal su-
pervision and control that must certainly
be imposed to accomplish the purpose of
tho Incorporation would not be accepted
by an ordinary business concern. The
third objection. that tho worst Offenders
will not accept federal Incorporation. is
easily answered The DEGREES Of injunc-
tion recently adopted in prosecutions un-
der the antitrust law thorough
and sweeping that the corporations af-
fected Ly them have but three courses
before them:
First. they must resolve themselves
into their component parts In the differ