The Goldfield news. [volume] (Goldfield, Nev.) 1904-1911, 1910-02-05
The Foreign Corporation Evll

HE DENVER MINING RECORD is of the belief ta' hei'
TT should at least be uniformity in the corporation avs u
various states, and refers to the foreign corporation WI +"
which companies III organized in the states having most lax coipoi"
ton laws, and do business in other states, as follows;
II is freqenhy urged that the activity of the government IN at
tempting to take from the states much of their power over cOrpo"
lions, that is, the power represented by control over companies uOHs
an ;ptertates business, is unwarranted, but it may be just al urgent
Nv suggested that the states will still have a great deal lft TO 10 "
this particular field that they have in leaving undone. cc''o"
the example of Texas, in its campaign against the STANDARD IN ~
pany. is cited as evidence of what the states have really DONE o' "'
is only spectacular instance. There is much unspectacuiar W
that they apparently do not think of. or, if any of their citizens do
think of it, their lawmakers promptly put a quletus upon II i"i'
fore. we find the government at Washington seeking to concentrate
more power over corporations in it's own hands. Ehhu Root perhaps
the foremost advocate of the national concentration II power Ids
himself lately pointed out the value to the country of efectlng a great
err uniformity of purpose among the states, within lines that they ~
limited to by their state functions, while 1t has already become d
common thing to behold conferences of governors IN all u 'S &c"
1t is in the light of the latest governors conference that N
Wall Street Journal makes a suggestion to remedy an evil IA
often been discussed in this column of The Record Inc ourna
refers to the common practice of Incorporating In one state, where III
laws r. liberal. to do business in another state, where the laws are
not $ liberal This practice is encouraged by the laws of many states
and the lassitude of their attorneys general, with respect to the rights
of foreign corporations. Indeed, there are plenty of instances IN
which such foreign corporations make no pretense of complying with
the laws of the states where they do business, or profess to do bust
u0
ness; while it . only now and then that one hears OF a state making
a fight against the entry of a foreign company within its borders.
at seems timely, . says the Journal ito take up the question OF
the right of one state to issue a charter to a company to do business III
another Certainly, if a blanket charter is issued, it would be hard,
if not impossible. for another state, under the national constitution, to
prohibit its entry outright, although the other state must have he
power o make foreign corporations obey its laws. Ii 1t were made
sufficiently hard for a corporation of one state to do business in an
other. the tendency to incorporate in this way would soon die out,
|,J ononapy oan;zerS would become willing to secure their charters
in the states where they expect to operate. This could be effected by
the laws of the states governing foreign corporations, or by laws that
prohibit the issuance of charters by the states for the doing of a for
eign business. If the latter alternative were followed, it would, OF
course, necesstate the adoption of a national Incorporation act, such
as proposed by President Taft, to provide for those corporations that
must do business in more than one state. Under such conditions, we
should probably have a desirable line of demarcation between the
powers of the national government and those OF the states with re-
spect to the creation Of corporations. The states would then, perhaps
feel that their responsibility toward the corporations doing business
solely within their borders was no longer divided, that it was con-
centrated in their own hands and that it had become a serious matter.