The Daily Missoulian., 1910-01-08

= - -
| be the care of the government to per-
| NIT such concentration of capifaa
| while keeping open the avenues OF inr
dividual enterprise and the opportun--
| ity for man or corporation with rea-
| sonabie capital to engage in business
If We would maintain our present bus
iness supremacy. we should give to in
| dustrial concerns an opportunity to
recognize and concentrate their legit-
innate capital in a federal corporation
and to carry on their large business
within the lines of the law. Second
| there are those who doubt the consti-
tutionality of such federal incorpora-
tion. The regulation of Interstate and
foreign commerce is certainly con-
ferred in the fullest measure upon
securing in the most thorough manner
that kind of regulation. congress shall
insist that ii may provide and authcr-
ixe certain agencies 20 carry on that .
commerce. ii would secm to be with
In its power This has been distinctly
affirmed with respect to railroad com -
panies doing an interstate business and
interstate bridges. The power of in
corporation has been exercised by con-
gress and upheld by the Supreme court
in this regard. Why. then. with re-
spect to any other form of interstate
commerce.sSh Shke the sale OF goods
across state boundaries and into for
eign commerce. may the same power
not be asserted? Indeed. 1t is the very
fact that they carry ON interstate
commerce that makes these great in
dustrial concerns subject to federal
prosecution and control.
Open Question.
How far. as incidental to the carry
ing on of that commerce ii may be
within the power of the federal gov
ernment to authorize the manufac-
ture of goods. Is perhaps open to dis
cussion, though a recent decision of
the supreme court would seem to an
swer that question in the affirmative.
Even those who are willing to cont
cede that the supreme court may sus-
tain such federal Incorporation are in
clined to oppose II on the ground of
its tendency to the enlargement of the
federal power at the expense of the
power of the states. 1t is a sufficient
answer to this argument to say that
no other methods can be suggested
which offefs federal protection on the
one hand. and close federal supervis-
ion on the other, of the central organ-.
izations that are in fact federal. be-
cause 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 e
burden of complete federal superyis-
on and control that must certainly be
imposed to accomplish the purpose of
he Incorporation would not be ac-
'epted by an ordinary business con-
'ern.
Third Objection.
The third objection that the worst
offenders will not accept federal in
is easily answerable. The
lecrees of injunction recently adopted
n prosecutions under the antitrust law
re so thorough and sweeping that the
corporations affected by them have
'ut three alternatives before them.
first, they must resolve themselves
nto their component parts in the diff
erent states, with a consequent loss
rganization and to the country of con- III
entrated energy and enterprise or.
econd, in defiance of law and under
ONE secret trust. they must attempt
. continue their business violation OF
he federal statute and thus incur the
enalties of contempt and bring on an
1evitable criminal prosecution of the
ldividuals named in the decree and
tner associates; or. third. they must
ecognize and accept in good faith the
ederal charter 1 suggest.
A federal compulsory license law.
rged as substitute for a federal In
law is unnecessary except
reach that kind OF corporation
'hich by virtue of the considerations
lready advanced. will take advantage
of may corporation laws.
lille the other state corporations do
lg an interstate business do not need
he supervision or the regulation OF. q I
'deral license. and would only be un-
burdened thereby.
The attorney general. at my sug-
estion. has drafted a federal corpor-
Ion bill embodying the views ! have
tempted to set forth and it WIN be
the disposal OF the appropriate
of congress
fSigned WILLIAM u. TAFT.
The White House. January :. 1910.