Omaha daily bee., 1910-01-08

that where it appears that the acquisition
and concentration Of property go TO the
extent Of creating a monopoly or OF sub
stantiaIly and directly restraining inter-
state it is not the intention of
the government to permit this monopoly
to exist under federal Incorporation or to
transfer to, the protection of the federal
government Of the state corporations now
violating the Sherman act. But 1t Is not,
and should not be, the policy of the goV-
eminent 10 prevent reasonable concentra-
ton Of capital which is necessary to the
economic development of manufacture.
trade and commerce. This country has
shown a power of economical production
that has astonished the world, and has
enabled us to compete will foreign manu-
facturers in many markets. 1t should be
the care of the government to permit such
concentration of capital, while keeping open
the avenues of individual enterprise and
the opportunity for a man or corporation
with reasonable capital to engage in bust
ness. If we would maintain our present
business supremacy we should give to in
dustrial CONCERNS an opportunity to recog-
nize and to concentrate their legitimate
capital in a federal corporation and to
carry on their large business within the
lines of the law.
COnstItutIOnnIity of Act.
"~Second-There are those who doubt the
constltutlonallty of such federal incorpora-
ton. The regulation Of interstate and
foreign m is certainly conferred in
the fullest measure upon congress, and if
for the purpose Of securing in the most
thorough manner that kind Of regulation,
congress shall insist that it may provide
and or,thpriga pavtofn opgpgfaa To 90 rru on
that commerce. it would seem to be within
its power. This has been distinctly affirmed
with respect to railroad companies dsing
an interstate business and Interstate
bridges. The power Of Incorporation has
been exercised by congress and upheld by
the supreme court in this regard. Why
then, with respect to any other form OF
interstate commerce like the sale of goods
across state boundaries and into foreign
commerce, may the same power not bI
asserted Indeed, II is the very fact tina
they carry on interstate commerce tina.
makes these great industrial concerns sub.
Ject 10 federal prosecution and control
HOW far as incidental to the carrying on o
ttat commerce II may be within the powe
Of the federal government TO authorize tn,
manufacture Of goods, is perhaps open t
discussion, though a recent decision of tn,
supreme court would seem to answer tina
question in the affirmative.
Concentration of Power.
Even those who are willing to conced
that the supreme COURT may sustain sucl
federal Incorporation are inclined TO oppos
il on the ground Of its tendency to the en-
largement OF the federal power az the eX
pense Of the power Of the state. 1t is
sufficient answer to this argument 10 sa
tkat no other method can be suggeste
which offers federal protection on the on
hand and close federal supervision on tn
other rand OF these great organization
that are in fact federal because they are a
r wide as the country, are entirely unlimite
. in their business by state lines. Nor is IN
Capitalization OF federal power under thi
I act likely to be excessive. Only the largei
I corporations would avail themselves {
y such a law, because the burden OF compile
. federal supervision and control that mui