Norwich bulletin., 1910-01-08

| will secure compliance Wlth tue aHu- trust law. If is possible so to frame | statute that, while lt offers protection to federal company against harmful. | vexatious and uDnecessary Invasion by the states. it shall subject if 10 reason able taxation and control by the states with respect to purely local business.
 Many people conducting great busi- nesses have cherished a hope and belief that in some way or other 4 line may be dra VII between good trusts" and bad trusts" The public. and es- peciaily the business public ought 10 rid themselves of the idea that such a distinction is practicab bIe or can be in- troduced Into the statute. Certainly under the present antitrust law no such distinction exists It has been proposed. however that the word "rea- sonabIe" should be made part of the statute and then that it should be left to the court 10 say what is reasonable ! restraint of trade. what is a reasonable suppression of competition. what Is a reasonable monopoly. venture to think that this is to put into the hands of the court power impossible 10 exer- else on any consistent principle.
 In considering violations of the anti trust law we ought of course. not 10 forget that that law makes unlawful methods of carrying on business which before it's passage were regarded as | evidence of business sagactty and sue cess and that they were denounced in this act not because of their intrinsic immortality. but because of the danger ous results toward which they tended. the concentration Of industrial power fin the hands Of the few. leading To oppression and injustice.
 Through all our considera lion of this grave question. however. we must in- sist that the suppression Of compeii- ton. the controlling of prices and the monopoly or attempt to monopolize in interstate commerce and business are not only unlawful. but contrary to the public good. and that they must be re- strained and punished until ended.
 Nationsi Incorporation Law.
 l therefore recommend the enactment by congress of a general law providing for the formation of corporations to engage fin trade and commerce among the states and with foreign nations, protecting them from undue interfer- ence by the states and regulating their activities, so as to prevent the recur- 
 abuses which have arisen under state control. Such a law should provide for the issue of stock of such corpo- rations to an amount equal only to the cash paid in on the stock. and if the stock be issued for property then at fair valuation. ascertained under ap- proval and supervision of federal au- thority, after a full and complete dis closure of all the facts pertaining to the value of such property and the in- terest therein of the persons 10 whom it is proposed to Issue stock in pay ment of such property. 1t should sub feet the real and personal property only of such corporations to the same tax ation as is imposed by the states with in which if may be situated upon other similar property located therein. and it should require such corporations to file full and complete reports of their opera tions with the department of conl- merce and labor st regular Intervals. Corporations organized under this act should be prohibited from acquiring and holding stock in other corporations except for special reasons upon ap- proval by the proper federal author ityj,- thus avoiding the creation under national auspices of the holding com pany with subordinate corporations in different states, which has been such an effective agency in the creation of the great trusts and monopoiies.
 If the prohibition of the antitrust act against combinations in restraint of trade is to bs effectively enforced it is essential that the national govern ment shall provide for the creation of ! tx a legitimate business throughout the United States. The cennicting jaws of the different states of the Union with respect to foreign corporations make 1t difficult if not impossible for one corporation to comply with their re- quirements so as to carry on business fin a number of different states.
 To the suggestion that this proposal of federal incorporation for industrial combinations is intended to furnish them q refuge fin which to continue in. dustriai abuses under federal protec tion 1t shonld be said that the meas ure contemplated does not repeal The Sherman antitrust law and is not 10 be framed so as to permit the doing of the wrongs which it is the purpose of that low 10 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. ObtecI 10 iC AS too great federal centSalization. lt win be opposed. third. by those who will insist that q mere voluntary incorporation like this will not attract 10 it's acceptance the worst of the offenders against rue an thrust statute and who will therefore propose instead of 1t a system of com pulsory licenses for all federal corp0- rations engaged iu interstate business
 Objections ForsstsIIed.
 Let us consider these objections in