Montpelier examiner. [volume] (Montpelier, Idaho) 1895-1937, 1910-01-14
able or can be introduced into the stat

able or can be introduced into the stat
I'm considering violations of the anti
trust law we ought, of course, not 70
methods of carrying on business which
before its passage We're regarded as evil
dence of business sagacfty ana success.
and that they we're denounced in this act
not because OF their intrinsic immoral
suits toward which they tended, the con-
hands of the few. leading to oppres-
sion and injustice. In dealing, therefore, |
the mren methods issd condemned By the statute
for the purpose of maintaining a pront-
Change by them in the method of do
ing business, and enable them to bring 1t
losing the country the economy Of
management by which, in our domestic
materially lessened, and in competition petition,
trade has been greatly increased
Asks National Corporation Law.
81 therefore recommend the enactment |
by congress of a general law providing
Tor the torIaation OF eofpora'io nsan 70 the
states and with foreign nations, protect
states and regulating their activities SO
as to prevent the recurrence, under ma
have arisen under state control such
law should provide for the issue of stock
only to the cash paid in on the stock;
and II the stock be issued for property
then at a fair valuation ascertained I'M
der approval and supervision OF fede era
f after the f f and to
| value of such property and the interest
FreTesn to issue stock n payment Of
1 snch property. 1t should subject the real
porations to the same taxation as inn
/ posed by the states within which 1t may
Re a tSerei pon and h It should require
| such corporations to file~ full and com
department Of commerce and labor. at
regular intervals: Corporations organized
acquiring and holding stock in other cor
approval by the proper federal author
ity), thus avoiding the creation, under
with subordinate corporations in different
states which has been such an enectlve
agency in the creation of the great trusts
and monopolies.
state Laws Conflict.
''If the prohibition of the antitrust act
Is to be efrectively enforced. it is essen
tial that the national government shall
porations to carry on a legitimate bust
ness throughout the United States the
the union with respect to foreign corpora
lions make it dificult. If not impossible.
in j number Of difrerent states.
ITO the suggestion that this proposal of
binations is intended to furnish them q
business under federal protection 1t
plated does not repeal the Sherman anti
trust law and Is not TO be framed SO as
it is the purpose OF that law to prevent.
but only to foster continuance and ad-
without permitting industrial abuses.
such national incorporation law will
Re tp9see shoud e
up and their property DESTROYED IL VIII
j | the cOnstitutiOnalitX of such federal In
corporation and even II IL is valid, object
It viii be opposed third, BY those who
| will insist that mere voluntary incor-
IKE the TINS worst Mi o o he onder
: against the antitrust statute and who
tenn tenn Of compulsory licenses for ali feder-
al corporations engaged In Interstate
LET us consider these objections In
their order. The gover M t y now Try.
] | tions and 1t is not the intention of the
t in It's effort to end these combinations
which are to-day monopolizing the com.
: pears that the acquisition and concen.
] tration of property 60 to the extent o.
/ directly restraining interstate commerce
$ it is not the intention of the government
) federal Incorporation or to transfer t.
2 the protecting wing Of the federal gov
I lating the Sherman act. But it is not
and should not be the pongy Of the gon
s tration of capital which is necessary Il
e the economic development of manufac
q ture, trade and commerce
: May Doubt constitutonality.
: ..second-There are those who doubt tn,
constitutionality of such federal incorpor
: alton. The regulation of interstate ant
i foreign commerce is certainly conferred
? in the fullest measure upon congress. ant
y if for the purpose of securing in the mos
y thorough manner that kind of regulation
: congress shall insist that it may provid
= and authorize agencies to carry on tina
II commerce, 1t would seem to be within it
. power. this has been distinctly affirme
- interstate business and interstat
y | bridges. The power of Incorporation ha
, been exercised by congress and uphel
|. by the supreme court in this regard
II form of interstate commerce like the sal
&c of goods across state boundaries and int
= foreign countries. may the same powe
= not be asserted? Indeed, 1t is the Yer
merce that makes these great industrit
A. concerns subject to federal prosecutio
l. and control How far incidental
IS the carrying of that commerce 1t ma
S. be within the power of the federal GOV
ar eminent TO authorize the manufacturer
1e goods. is perhaps more open to diseu:
d. | sion, though a recent decision of the 81
al preme court would seem to answer thu
&c question in the affirmative.
n The third objection. that the worst o
g. tenders will not accept federal incorpors
g. ton. is easily answered. The DEGREES
st | injunction recently adopted In pfoseel
te | tions under the antitrust law
d. thorough and sweeping that the corpor;
us | lions affected by them have but thrt
IS courses before them:
on First. they must resolve themselv.
to into their component parts in the diffe
ent states. with a consequent loss