The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-01-08

! II has been proposed. however, that the
word .rcasonablc" should be made pa,<
OF tic statute, and then that 1t shoulA
! be Icft to the court to soy what is a roas
sonablc restraint OF trade, what 70 reas
sonablo suppression OF competition. what
| iy reasonable monopoly. venture to
| think that this ID TO put into the hands
/ OF tho court q power impossible to cxcr.
| else on any consistent principle which will
| insure tho uniformity OF decision essential
| to Just Judgment. 1t is to thrust upon the
courts burden that they have no pre-.
| cedepts to enable them to carry, and to
| give them II power approaching the arbl-
tnry. the abuse OF Which might Involve our
whole judicial system IN dlsaster.
restoring to I.nwfulness.
In corsidcrns violations OF the anti.
trust law wc ought. OF course. not to for.
get that that law makes unlawful. methods
OF carrying ON business which before Ito
passage were regarded as evidence OF bus
imess sasaciiy and SUCCESS, and that they
were denounced In his act not because OF
their in,rinsic immortality. but because Of
the dangerous resultn toward which they
tended, tho concentration Of indubtrial
power In the hands OF the few. leading to
oppression and injustice. In Dealing. there
fore. With manrS OF the men who have
used the methods condcmncd by tina statute
for the purpose OF nantainins n profitable
business. we may vol facilitate Q change
by them In the method of doing business.
and enable them 70 bring 1t back into tho
gone OF lawfulness without losing to tht
country the economy of management by
which In our domestic trade the cost OF
production has been materially 1esscned and
in competition with foreign manufacturers
our foreign trade has been greatly In
creased
Through all our consideration of thi.
grave question, however. we mus. insist
that the suppression of competition, tho
controlling OF prices. and the monopoly or
attempt TO monopolise In interstate COM
mercc and business arc not only unlawful,
but contrary 10 tho public good, and that
they must be restrained and punished uz.
I'll ended.
I therefore recommend the enactment by
Congress OF a general law providing Cor the
formation OF corporations to engage in
trade and commerce among tho states and
With foreign nations. protecting them from
Undue interference By the states and rosu-
latins their activities. 80 as to prevent thu
recurrence. under national auspices, or
those abuses which have ariser under state
control. SUCH law should provide for the
issue OF stock OF such corporations to an
amount equal only to the cash paid In on
the stock; and II the stock DO issued
Tor property, then at n fair valuation; as
certatned under approval and supervision
o, Federal authority, after full and COM
plete disclosure of all tho facts pertaining
TO the value OF such property and tho In
,erest therein OF the persons TO whom It
Is proposed TO issue stock In payment of
and personal property only OF such Cor
poFatlons to the same taxation as is i'm,
posed b. the States within which II may be
situated upon other simiiar properly To-
Gated therein. and It should require such
corporations TO file full and complete re.
ports OF their operations with the Depart
nent OF Commerce and Labor at regular
intervals. Corporations organized urder
this act should be prohibited from acquir-
ing and holding stock in other corpora
lions except for special reasons upon an
proSal by the proper Federal authority.
thus avoiding the creation, under national
auspices. of the holding company with sub
ordinate corporations in different states.
which has been such an effective agency
N the creation OF the great trusts and
nonopolles.
No Repeal OF sherman Law.
To the suggestion that this proposal OF
FEDERAL Incorporation for Industrial 5csea
'snatioas Is intended 10 furnish them a
retuSe In which 10 continue Industrial
buses nndef Federal protection. 1t should
% said that the measure contemplated docs
aot repeal the Sherman antitrust law and
y not TO be framed SO TO permit the
ioing OF the wrongs which 1, is the pur-
,ose OF mat law 10 prevent. but only 10
oHter q continuance and advance OF the
'lsnest Industrial efficiency without per-
hitting Industrial abuses.
such national incorporation law VIII !
&c opposed. frat by those who believe that
risis should be completely broken up and
heit property destroyed. /: win be OPP
'osed. second. by those who doubt the CON
OF such Federal ncorpors-
ion. and even II Il, Is valid. iect to 4, as
90 great Federal Capitalization.
Let us consider these objections in their
roer. The government Is now trying to
!ssolve some OF these combinations. and
10 not the intention Of the govern
men 10 desst IN the least degree in IL.
Tort to end those combinations which are
o-day monoDoli2ins the commerce OF this
oun n,r;. that where II appears that the
cqu.sstion and concentration OF property
% TO the. extent of creating monopoly
OF substantially and directly restrain
Ne interstate commerce, 1t Is not tho in
eht'on OF the government to permit this
'ohopoly 10 exist under Federal incorpors-
ion or to transfer to the protecting wing
the Federal government state corno-
aton now violating the Sherman act.
;ut II is not, and should not be. the policy
! inc government to prevent reasonable
of capital which is necessary
Q the economic development OF manufac-
ure. trade aud commerce This country
as shown power of economical produce
oh t'ial mas astoilshed the world. and
as enabled US TO compete with foreign
In many markets. It should
g the care OF the government to permit
UGH concentration OF capital while keep
,g open the avenues OF Individual enter
rise and the opportunity for man or
with reasonable capital to en-
age In business.
Within Congress Power.
ESccoHQ. mere are 5lnoSo WHO doubt the
onstitutlonnlity of such Federal incor-
Grafton The regulation OF interstate ana
'reisn commerce is certainly conferred in
le fullest measure upon Congress. and il
or the purpose OF securing In the most
borough manner that kind OF regulation,
ongress shall insist that 1t may provide
nd authorize certain agencies to carry on
nat commerce. it would seem TO be within
8 power. This has been distinctly aftirm-
with respect to railroad companies do.
y an interstate business and interstate
ridges The power OF Incorporation has
cen exercised by Congress and upheld By
le Supreme Court In this regard. Why.
zen, with respect to any form OF inter
ate commerce like the sale Of goods
cross state boundaries and into foreign
may tho same power not be as
rted' Indeed, 1t is the very fact that
icy carry on interstate commerce that
axes these great Industrial concerns sub
ct to Federal prosecution and control.
ow far as incidental to the carrying on
hat commerce It may be within the
owtr OF the Federal government~to au-
lorize tho manufacture OF goods. Is per-
APPS more open to gdscussion though a re-
ALL