The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-01-08

~ VIC persons 10 wlom IL iS proposed IA
issue stocE Ia payment % such pronc,.,t
only OF such corporations 10 tho ss.,y
taxation - is imposed bv rho s,a,'~~
within which IL may bc situated ,,s,~
oiher similar property located ihcreI,,
ara il should require such corpors tsnnt
10 nl" full aus complete reports or the.
operations Nith tho department OF corr,
ner"" and iahor At regular intervals,
LoTp"ra ions 9rGsniLNd under this ati
Should he prohibited from acquiring a,,t
holding stock ir Other corpora Tons Cd
y"Dr for special reasons upon approv4
by tnc proper federal authvritles). ths,]
avoiding the creating under nationS
auspices. OF the holding company wi,,j
subordinate corpora lions I'm diffsren'
states. which has bccu such an nffectjv,
ascuci IN ihc creation cf the great trl;su
and monOpolies.
Not Up TO the States.
II ikc problem OF antitrust lccylatIo,
against combinations I'm restraint of ir,,d'
~ 30 be effectively enforced. IT Is csser
ttal that the national government shaI
prov i6n for tho creation nf national cor
Hpra''cnS 10 carry on n legitimate hl.si
pcss throughout the United states. TIN
conflicting laws ol the different state
o. ;ho union with respect Ia foreign coi;
pnratiors make ~ difficult II not impossI
bic. Tor one corporation IN comply viii
their requirements 50 as TO carry on
business in 4 number oi different states
TO tho suggestion shat this propose
of fed"ral invorpor9 ton Tor industYja
combinations IL intended 10 furnish tneu
r"fugc in which tu continue irduetrIa
ahuscs un5oU FEDERAL protection. II shoul
b" said that IN" measure contemplate e
does not repeal the Sherman snd-trls
laW. and i: not 30 be framed so as :
permit the doing Of IN" wrongs which
Is the purpose ol that Ia to prevent bu
only 10 foster continuance and adNanc
n' tho highest Industrial efficiency with
out permitting industrial abuses.
Such national Incorporation ls~ vi
~ tlz as.< 81. .--a
the trusts should h completely broke
ny ana their property DESTROYED. II ri
be- opposed. second. hN those who dout
the constithtionality Of such federal in
isct io IT as "a great federal cenirslizs
ton 1t Till nc opposed, thirds by thoE
who Will insist t1s' mere vountaf
ip"orpors tiop Ike this will not attract Z
It's sDcepva nee tho worst of The Offended
against the snti-trust statute. and VII
viii therefore propose. Instead of It.
Systern of colnpplscr$ licenses for all ied
cral corpora tions engaged In lnterstai
business.
Considering Objections.
Let us consider the objections IN tnei
order. The government is now tr1in
10 dissolve some OF Those combination
aud il is not the intention OF the govern
menl 10 dcsIst in the least degree in u
effort IA end these combinations whic
are TODAY monopolizing the c"mmerce
J
the acquisition and concentration OF PROF
ertv go in the extent or creating nf
nopoly or Of substantially and dnecfl
rrstls ming Interstate commerce.. II is nf
the intention OF the government 10 pei
nit tEis monopoly To exist under fcder'
INCORPORATION. or 20 transfer 20 the pr
;octinE wing of the federal coi ernu'en
,hc state corporation now violating tn
Sherman act =,
policy of the government u prevent rca
rcr, ole concentration of capital which (
necesssry 10 the ecouoini" deNtlopnei
nf rnanufacturs. iTsoc ana commstc
TINS country ehows power OF ecf
nor5icaI nrotjrction thu, has astonishe
ihe world and has enabled lH To- cor
pete With foreign manufactures IN man
ma rkets. II should he the cave OF if
government 10 permit ruch concehfduo
Of capital while keeping open the aEenu'
of Individual enterprise and the oppo'
tunity for = man or corporation VII
! reg soma hlo capital Ia engage In nusines
n VIC would maintain our present ous
ness supremacy. ve should give 10 lnnu'
trjsl concerns an opportunity 10 reo
cauiZe and concentrate their ieeltimd
capital in = federal corporation ana
carr. on their large business wlthln VI
lines or the Ian.
Holds Plan Constitutional
Second. there are those who doubt u
cnnstitutiouaIitv Of such federal lncol
poratinr The regulation of inisrsta'
and foreign commerce y certainly COT
ferred in the fullest measure upon cor
cress. and if for tho purpose OF sscu'
Ing IN the most thorough manner tn'
kind ~ regulation congress shsil insi'
that IL may provide and authorize col
tain agencies 10 carry on that con'Oseft
il would seen1 10 be Within MS poWc
This has been distinctly affirmed VII
respect TO railroad C"ups MES DONG a
interstate business. The power OF ~
rornoratiou has heon exercised ny COZ
gress and upheld by The supreme court
this regard. Why. then, with respect
any other form OF interstate commercl
like tho sale of goods across sfa'
bound aries and into foreign commsrc'
NAV the same power not ne asserIeu
Indeed. IT is the very fact t1at tnc
carry on interstate commerce thdt ulNrs !
these great Industrial concerns sup'e'
TO fed sral prosecution and control
How far. as incidental 10 inc carrss
ing ON of that commerce il may y
within The power of the federal govern
moni to authori2e the manufacture
goods is perhaps open 70 o'sc'lss,o,
court would seem I" answer mat cues
ton in the affirmative.
As to State Rights
Even those who are willing TO ccu
cede that the supreme court may suS
,,in .urh federal incorporation arc IN
rIined 10 oppose II on the Erounn ol
tendency TO the enlargement OF inc lop
ar1l mower at the expense OF tnc pow
Of the states II is \ sufficient ans%s
Ia iLix argument 10 say tnst no o.Ys ons
methnds can nc suggested Nnich oii'
federal protection on the one band an
close federal supervision on the o,ne,
Of the central urSapi&st tlons that are
fact federal, because they are as VIZ VIZ
.e tho couutrv and arc entirely unllmne'
i1 their business by state lines. MOI
tb, cnDtraliZat tiou Of federal power lius
this act likely Ia be excessive. Only ,n'
Isrces; corporations would aN5ii 'ns,l.
selves Of such n law. because Inc purus'
of complete federal supervision ano IL =,
troll that must certainly he lnPossnn .o,' =
ACCOMPLISH the purpose o' ing ' q,
pora ation rould not be accep'cn pN a.
ordinary business concern.
Can Apply Injunction
The third objection that the wofn, or' or'
tenders viii not accept lenet"Ir ,'eI. AZ.
rorari5n Is easily answerable Inc nS' d,
rrecs OF injunction recently adopted =.
,rosocn,ionS nndeT the antl-trnsi
arc so thorough and sweeping tndt ~ ~
,.,rray.,inns affected by Them have o"'
thre@ alternatives before them; ,,,s
First they must resolve thelnsei,nsSeSs i,seS.rar, n,o,
tieir component parts in the u',s,.. ,s,,'.
states with = consequent loss 10 ~.
selves OF capital and effective orss.tsa s,a IA
lion and To the country ol conCe"N'"'1
energy and enterprise; or na a.
Second. they must reorEan'"S CIV
{
of =