The Hattiesburg news. (Hattiesburg, Miss.) 1908-1917, 1911-05-03

| ledSt, the burdens OF government
among the people in proportion to
their wealth, since any system that ig-
nores this principle will have it's I'M
Just, burdensome and oppressive fea-
lures?
Regulation and Control of Corpora
tons.
The regulation and control of cor
porations opens field for uniformity
white already to harvest" This field
presents a multitude of perplexities
which will tax the patriotism, the wis
dom and the sagacity of our greatest
men, greatest statesmen.
A strenuous age has given rise to
numerous corporations and counter
corporations, combinations and coun-
ter combinations, associations and
counter associations, unions and coun-
ter unions, with great diversity of de-
mands and engaged in perpetual con-
fiict; and the differing laws of the
states add to the universal strife and
confusion, by lending force, power,
complexion to such bodies in the one
state that they possess in none of the
others. The situation is simply ap-
palling.
We thus have demonstrated the
lameness of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, which was designed primarily to
prevent injurious combinations in re-
straint of trade, but which extends far
beyond that. 1t prohibits combina-
tons, legitimate and essential to
complex business and industrial sys-
tenn such as ours. 1t seems to pro-
hibit labor unions, farmers associa-
tons and all similar organizations.
Much of the business of the
country is done contrary to
the strict letter of this law
Really, it would seem that the states
desiring uniformity must act with the
greatest care and precaution, lest they
find themselves in conflict with the
sweeping terms of the Sherman law
Perpetuity of Our Institutions Involved.
Seriously here are questions that
involve the perpetuity of our insttu-
lions, This perpetual conflict between
capital and labor, between industry
and idleness, must be regulated and
controlled by law, if we would not
drift finally to the most disastrous con-
! i'm tiopc Cf ox-;l
tendency should be prohibited; combi-
nations for proper purposes should be
permitted and confined to Legitimate
bounds by sharply discriminating
> laws. The people are not disposed to
prohibit business. They are deter
mined to control it to the extent that
and oppression. Aggregations of CAPT
tai are learning that they must submit
to regulation.
Relief is largely dependent upon the
action of the states. Most corpora
. tons, most combinations, are creatures
T. of the states; and it is the duty of the
= states to control and govern their re
! spective creatures. The general gov
J. eminent should deal with subjetcS
t purely national; but there is a large
t field over which the general govern
@ ment has no jurisdiction, howevel
: much men may fly to it for relief. The
o states will have to face and solve
= these problems. There is no reason
t. in principle. why states cannot adop
D a uniform antitrust law why comb
= nations in restraint of trade and mo
h nopolies should have powers in ont
D. state that are prohibited in others
d why such combinations and corpora
It tons should not be subject to TIA
n same rules of regulation and conuo
in each state Can any state profit b
more drastic laws concerning these in
e. portant subjects than exist in the othe
f. states? Is it not the citizens OF tn
D. state, at last, that are most injured b
ut stringent regulations which drive cap
~ tai from, and unduly burdens thu
tyl which finds employment within, the
t borders?
ly Uniform Incorporation Law.
n Why may not uniformity be carrie
he beyond mere regulation and control
er corporations? The commissioners al
es working on a Uniform Incorporate
S; Law" Perhaps there is no subje
err about which there is greater diversi
he in state laws. In some instance
states occupy antagonistic position
Some states have sought to entice cal
ed tai into their borders by overlap law
of while others have repealed capital
nd overstringent laws. Some states ha
ne made their laws so lax and elast
he that men go there to organize the