Evening journal., 1910-01-07
PRESIDENT
HITS AT TRUSTS
contInuea From FIrst Page.
Of its passage.


In addition TO the foregoing amend
ments Of the Interstate commerce law.
tho Interstate Commerce Commission
should be given the power. after hear
ing, TO determine upon the uniform con-
struction Of those appiiances-such as sill
steps, ladders, roof hand holds. running
boards, and hand brakes on freight cars
engaged in interstate commerce-used by
the train men in the operation Of trains.
the defects and lack OF uniformity in
which are apt to produce accidents and in
juries to railway train men. The wonder
ful reforms effected in the number OF
switohmen and train men injured by coup
ling accidents due TO the enforced intro
ducuon OF safety couplers, is a demon
stration OF what can be done IL railroads
are compelled TO adopt proper safety
appliances
Federal Incorporation Law.
After making his recommendation for
Federal Incorporation law as a means
OF curbing trusts. President Taft SAYS:
Such a 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 consttutionality OF such federal in.
corporation. and even II II is valid. OBJ
iect 70 II as too great federal oentrallza-
tion. II win be opposed. third. by those
who will insist that mere voluntary in
corporation like this will not attract to
It's acceptance the worst Of the offenders
against the antitrust statute and who Will
therefore propose instead Of It a system
OF compulsory licenses for all federal
corporations engaged IN interstate busi-
ness.
Let us consider these objections in
their order The Government is now try
ing to dissolve some Of these combina-
tions, and It is not the intention OF the
Government 10 desist IN the least degree
in It's effort to end those combinations
which are to-day monopolizing the COM
merce Of this country; that where it ap-
pears that the acquisition and concentra-
ton Of property so to the extent OF Gre
ating monopoly or OF substantially and
directly restraining interstate commerce,
It is not the intention of the Government
TO permit this monopoly TO exist under
federal Incorporation or to transfer to
the protecting wing of the Federal Gov
ernment a state corporation now violating
the Sherman Act But Il Is not and should
not be, tho policy Of tho Government to
prevent reasonable concentration of capt.
tai which Is necessary to the economic
development OF manufacture trade. and
commerce. This country has shown a
power Of economical production that has
astonished the world. and has enabled us
to compete with foreign manufactures in
many markets, Il should be tho care of
the Government to permit such concentra-
tion Of capital while keeping open the
avenues OF individual enterprise and the
opportunity for man or corporation with
reasonable capital TO engage IN business.
Il we would maintain our present busi-
ness supremacy. we should give to in
dustrial concerns an opportunity to reor-
eanize and to concentrate their legitimate
capital IN federal corporation, and 10
carry on their large business within the
lines Of the law.
Says II is constitutional
Second. There are those who doubt the
constluuonality OF such Federal incor-
poration Tho 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 regulation.
Congress shall insist that It may provide
ana 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 COM
panles doing an interstate business and
interstate bridges. The power Of incor-
poration 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
tho sale of goods across State boundaries
and into foreign commerce. may the same
power not be asserted? Indeed it is the
very fact that they carry on interstate
commerce that makes these great indus
trial concerns subject to Federal prose-
cution and control. How far as incidental
to the carrying on Of that commerce it
may be within the power Of tho Federal
Government to authorize the manufacture
OF goods. Is perhaps more open to discus
sion, though recent decision Of tho su-
preme Court would seem to answer that
question in the affirmative.
! Enlarged Federal Power.
/ Even those who are willing TO concede
that the Supreme Court may sustain such
federal incorporation are inclined to op-
pose 1t on the ground OF its tendency to
the enlargement OF the federal power at
the expense Of the power OF the States. IL
( Is a sufficient answer 10 this argument to
say that no other method can be suggest
ed which offers federal protection on the
one hand and close federal supervision
on the other of these great organizations
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 a law. because the
burden OF complete federal supervision
and control that must certainly be Inn
posed 10 accomplish the purpose Of the
incorporation would not be accepted by an
ordinary business concern.
"rhe third objection. that the worst Of
Tenders will not accept federal incorpora-
ton, is easily answered. The DEGREES OF
injunction recently adopted in prosecu-
tions under the antitrust law are SO thor
ough and sweeping that the corporations
affected by them have but three courses
before them: