The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-01-07

n t f s|. |.fs the dii, r. .le.s vI tue Union with respect to foreign corporations make it difficult if not impossible for one quirements so as to carry on business in a number of different states.
 To the suggestion that this proposal of federal incorporation for industrial combinations is intended to furnish them refuge ill which to continue in- dustrial abuses under federal protec- tion it should be said that the meas ure contemplated does not repeal the Sherman antitrust law and is not to be framed so as to permit the doing of the wrongs which it is the purpose of that low to prevent, but only to fos- ter continuance and advance of the highest industrial efficiency without permitting industrial abuses.
 Such a national incorporation law will be opposed. first. by those who be- lieve that trusts should be completely broken up and their property destroyed. It will be opposed. second. by those who doubt the constitutionality of such federal incorporation and. even if it is valid, object to it IS too great fedora; standardization. 1t will be opposed. third. by those who will insist that a mere voluntary incorporation like this will not attract to it's acceptance the worst of the offenders against the an- thrust statute and who will therefore propose instead of it system of com pulsory licenses for all federal corpo- rationS engaged in interstate business Objections Forestalled.
 Let us consider these objections in their order. The government is now trying to dissolve some of these con- binations, and it is not the intention of the government to desist in the least degree in it's effort to end those combinations which are today monop- oliZing the commerce of this country. But it is not and should not be the policy of the government to prevent reasonable concentration of capital which is necessary to the economic development of manufacture, trade and commerce. If we would maintain our present business supremacy we should give to industrial concerns an opportunity to reorganize and to con centrate their legitimate capital in federal corporation.
 Second, there are those who doubt the constitutionality of such federal incorporation. The regulation of inter- state and foreign commerce is certain I ly conferred ill the fullest measure upon congress, and if for the purpose of securing in the most thorough man. ner that kind of regulation congress shall insist that it may provide and authorize certain agencies to carry on that commerce it would seem to be
 within it's power. This has been dis tinctly affirmed with respect to rail- road companies doing an interstate business and interstate bridges. The power of incorporation has been ex- ercised 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?
 l Even those who are willing to con- cede that the supreme court may sus- tain such federal incorporation are in- ] clined to oppose it on the ground of | its tendency to the enlargement of the | federal power at the expense of the l power of the states. It is sufficient answer to this argument to say that
 no other method can be suggested which offers federal protection on tue ] one hand and close federal supervision on the other of these great organiza- tions 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 centraliza- ton of federal powgr under this act likely to be excessive. Only the largest
 Horrorations r,orld avail themselves of