Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1910-01-08

nete with foreign manufacturers In
MANY markets. 1t should be the
care of the government to permit
such concentration of capital while
keeping open the avenues OF 1ndiVlo'
ual enterprise, and the opportunity
for a man or corporation with reas-
enable capital to engage in business.
If We would obtain our present bus
mess supremacy, we should give 10
industrial concerns an opportunity
to reorganize and to concentrate
their legitimate capital in federal
corporation, and to carry on their
large business within the lines OF
the law.
Second, there are those who doubt
the constitutionality of such federal
Incorporation. 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 regu-
lation, congress shall insist that it
may provide and authorize certain
agencies to carry on that commerce,
it would seem to be within its power.
This has been distinctly affirmed
with respect to railroad companies
doing an interstate business and in
terstate bridges. The power of in
corporation 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 commerce, may the
same power not be asserted? In.
deed it is the ve7y fact that they
carry on interstate commerce that
makes these great industrial con-
Germs subject to federal prosecution
and control. How far as incidental
to the carrying on of that commerce
federal government to authorize the
manufacture of goods, is perhaps
more open to discussion, though a
recent decision of the supreme court
would seem to answer that question
in tho affirmative
Even those who are willing to
concede that the supreme court may
sustain such federal Incorporation
are inclined to oppose it on the
ground of its tendency to the en-
largement of the federal power at
the expense of the power of the
states. 1t is sufficient answer to
this argumentthis argument to say
that no other method can be sug-
gested which offers federal protec-
ton on the one hand and close fed
eral supervision on the other of
these great organization, that are in
face federal because they are as wide
as the country and are entirely elm.
mated 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 a law, because the burden Of
complete federal supervision and
control that must certainly be i'm
posed to accomplish the purpose of
the incorporation would not be &C
cepted by an ordinary business con-
Germ.
The third objection, that the worst
offenders will not accept federal in
corporation, is easily answered. The
DEGREES of injunction recently adopt
ed in prosecutions under the anti
trust law are so Thorough and sweep
ing that the corporations affected
by them have but three before them:
First, they must resolve them
selves into their component parts
in the different states, with a conse-
quent loss to themselves of capital
and effective organization and to the
country of concentrated energy and
enterprise; or
Second, in defiance of law and
under some secret trust they must
attempt to continue their business in
violation of the federal statute, and
thus incur the penalties of con-
tempt and bring on an inevitable
criminal prosecution of the individ-
uals named in the decree and their
associates; or
Third, they must re-organize and
accept in good faith the federal
charter issuing.
"A federal compulsory license law,
urged as a substitute for federal
incorporation law, is unnecessary
except to reach that kind of corpor-
alton which, by virtue of the consid-
eratiOnS already advanced. will take