The Green Forest tribune., 1910-01-14
May Doubt constitutlonality.

Second-There are those who doubt the constitutionality of such federal incorpor- ation. The regulation of interstate ano foreign commerce is certainly conferred in the fullest measure upon congress, auC if for the purpose of securing in the most thorough manner that kind of regulation congress shall insist that it may provide and authorize agencies to carry on thai commerce. it would seam to be within its power this has been distinctly affirmed with respect to railroad companies doing 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 countries. may the same power not be asserted? Indeed, it i very fact that they carry on interstate com. merce that makes these great industrial concerns subject to federal prosecution and control. How far as incidental tc the carrying on of that commerce it may be within the power of the federal gov ernment to authorize the manufacturer oi goods is perhaps more open to discus sion, though a recent decision of the su- preme court would seem to answer that question in the affirmative.
 Even those who are willing to concede that the supreme court may sustain such federal incorporation are inclined to op- pose it on the ground of it's tendency tc the enlargement of the federal power al the expense of the power of the state. It is a sufficient answer to this argument to say that no other method can be sug- gested which offers federal protection or the one hand and close federal supervi- sion on the other of these great organi- cations that are in fact federal because A..
 entirely unlimited in their business by state lines. Nor is the eentralization ot federal power under this act likely to be excessive. Only the largest corpora ations would avail themselves of such a law. be- cause the burden of complete federal su- pervision and control that must certainly be imposed to accomplish the purpose of the incorporation would not be accepted by an ordinary business concern. The third objection, that the worst offenders will not accept federal incorporation. is easily answered. The decrees of ininnc- tion recently adopted in prosecutions un- der the antitrust law are so thorough and sweeping that the corporations af- fected Iy them have but three courses before them:
 First, they must resolve themselves into their component parts in the differ eht states, with consequent loss to lIleIiSeINeS oI CdplIdl anu eIectlVe organ ization and to the country of concen- trated energy and enterprise; or second in defiance of the law and under some secret trust they must attempt to con tinue their business in violation of the federal statute, and thus incur the pen alties of contempt and bring on an in- evitable criminal prosecution of the indI. viduals named in the decree and their associates; or
 Third, they must reorganize and accent in good faith the federal charter I sug- gest a federal compulsory license law. urged as a substitute for a federal incor- poration law, is unnecessary except to reach that kind of corporation which, by virtue of the considerations already ad vanced, will take advantage voluntarily of an incorporation law, while the other state corporations doing an interstate business do not need the supervision or the regulation of federal license and would only be unnecessarily burdened thereby.
 The attorney general, at my suggestion, has drafted a federal incorporation law, embodying the views have attempted to set forth and it will be at the dispos- ton of the appropriate committees of congress.
 WILLIAM IT. TAFT.
 The White House. Jan. I. 191o