The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-06-26
PRECEDENT AND POLICY.


would be rule of law, and he has
executed the laws as a lawyer. lie
has argued his cases at the bar of
public opinion, and his Cabinet officers,
Wickersham in particular. have been
told that when they advocate a policy
they must be able to give the why's
and wherefores.
Mr.. Wickersham has obeyed. this
order to the fullest and he has taken
every opportunity to give the Admins
tration's views of the laws affecting
every great question before the coun-
try. He has discussed the rate ques-
| ton. the railroad bill. the labor situa-
tion and half a score other topics. In |
his speech Thursday night before the
Illinois State Bar Association he dis
cussed the Federal control Of stock |
Issues by railroads and he gave the |
reasons why the Administration had
included the control of such issues in
the original draft OF tho railroad bill |
Mr.. Understands citations were ex-
haustive and his precedents We're
doubtless very good, but his argument
/ from them was decidedly weak. Brief
] ly stated. he held that the Federal
Government should have the right to
decide whether or not railroads could
Issue new stock and bonds. because
this was the only way to prevent
~"watering," because the Government
needed this power to control the rail-
roads and because the gift of this
power would be a legitimate extension
of the right to regulate interstate
commerce.
Nobody will disagree with Mr..
Wickersham in saying that something
should be done to prevent the inna-
ton of stocks unless the objector be
engaged in that business himself; but
few conservative men in the country
Will agree that such control is a lcgi-
innate extensionI of the power of the
Federal Government to regulate" In
terstate commerce. Regulation is not
ownership. and the power to make
reasonable stipulations does not carry
with 1t the power to dictate 10 any
public service corporation the condi-
tons under which 1t may organize to
do business. 1t is as lawful for
Congress to own and to operate the
railroads as it is for Congress to say
that any railroad may issue stock I'M
der certain conditions and no others.
Precedent may approve such an ex-
tension of the power to regulate, but
sound policy does not. We have too
much regulation already and we have
gone entirely too far in thinking that
the duty OF, the Government is either
to engage III. business or to name the
conditions under which private indi-
viduals may do So The less the Gov
eminent interferes with the individual
the better. and the further the Gov
eminent is from the individual the
more prosperous is the citizen and
the more stable the Government.
There is one other feature of Mr..
Wickersham's argument to which
there will be very general objection.
He. OF course. realizes that when the
Government attempts to dictate the
terms under which railroads and other
public service corporations engage in
business. 1t Will run counter to the
State charters under which such con-
Germs are now operating. On this
point. MIR. Wickersham said:
"Of course, the Federal Government
cannot confer upon a State corpora
ton power to borrow money ana issue
obllgations therefor, nor to create and
issue shares of stock. Only the power
which erected the corporation can vest
1t with authority for those purposes.
But under all the rules and analogies,
TO which reference has been made.
Congress assuredly may regulate and
restrain the State corporation in the
exercise of these as well as of other
corporate powers, and may prohibit
II from issuing obligations or stocks
Tor any purpose relating TO interstate
or foreign commerce except in accord
ance with rules and restrictions pre-
scribed by it for the purpose OF pre-
venting the evils above referred TO- In
that respect the National Government,
having adopted the State corporation
as an agency of interstate commerce.
may subject 1t to the same regula-
tons with respect TO the means OF
raising money for the purpose of
carrying on such commerce as it could
Impose upon corporation OF its own
creation"
This Is absurd, There is no such
thing as strictly interstate corpora
don, for no man livcth to himself
alone and no business house. worthy
of the name. confines itself to single
State, If the Federal Government
we're to declare that every corporation
holding a State charter and doing
business in other states would be sub
feet 10 the provisions of any interstate
regulations OF commerce that Congress
might adopt. the rights of the States
10 regulate corporations of their owr
creation would be taken away There
is no possible way OF separating the
lntrastate character of a corporatior
from It's interstate character, so far al
Its stock is concerned, and We're Con
gress to attempt such separation th'
S11.lt would be a general paralysis o