Evening star., 1939-04-28

Cost Accountant Sees No
Device to Cripple Business
In Measure
10 the Editor Of The Star:
was interested in the letter Of Henry
A. Hayward that appeared in The Star
April "a, 1899, on his reaction to the press
reports of Senator O1dahoney's speech
before the Washington Chapter OF the
National Association Of Cost Account
ants. Mr.. Hayward is opposed to Fed
eral charters for corporations engaged in
interstate commerce, but he fails to
state. except in generalities, the harm
suggested to the mind Of business by
what the Senator has said" I would like
to be informed Of the harm to the busi-
ness or to the financial success OF say,
General Motors, II it were incorporated
by Congress rather than through the
government Of the State Of Delaware.
The proposal of Federal charters a.
outlined by Senator O'Mahoney was part
OF the program Of the Washington Chap
ter of the National Association Of Cost
Accountants to keep abreast of events
In the growing and accepted movement
Of so years to assert national control for
national affairs of business. It Is to be
noted that local control of local business
is not affected. There was general agree
ment among our members that they had
participated in an instructive discussion,
and was surprised to learn Of the new
interest In our national affairs that the
thought provoking handling Of the sub
ject promoted. The results were all for
good.
AS 10 the proposal itself, it contains
elements that are found in problems
arising from the emergence of wilder
ness filled with people, now highly indus
trialized, from strip of Atlantic sea-
board almost wholly agricultural and
sparsely settled. In other words the
emergence of the United States out Of .
colonial subsidiary of a great trading
concern known as the British empire
with the heritage of States divided
against themselves so that what is best
for the State is not always best for the
Nation. This also works the other way
and Britannia, seeking to strengthen her.
self, has left dissension wherever meas
ure Of government has replaced the
remote control she exercised by trading
one interest against another. India,
South Africa, Canada and Australia are
struggling for democracy in areas where
religion, race and local conditions were
set up to prevent meeting Of the minds.
It's system that operates in this coun-
try through the distortion Of States
rights. 1t almost prevented our Consti-
tuition. But when incorporation is de-
sired for England, Scotland or Wales,
Parliament is the one and only authority.
1t Is q stimulating subject. Section
10 of the Article I OF the Constitution
says, mo State shall enter into any
treaty. alliance or confederation, ETC."
That definite privilege as to . State is
given up so that Legislature or . Gov
ernor. for instance, may not negotiate a
trade agreement with another power
But under practice that has grown up
and seems to be in violation of Article I,
section 10, State may charter q corpo-
ration and the latter may negotiate and
conclude trade agreement thing the
State has given up the right to do. It is
frequently done. One American cor
poration was dealing with Mussolini
while rival was dealing with Ethiopia
concerning oil rights in that country. No
State could have done it. The recent
act creating the Civil Aeronautics Au-
thOrity allows an arrangement through
the Department Of State whereby cor
porations may agree not to make secret
trade negotiations across the Atlantic,
but it Is not preventative. One supposes
this would be a wholesome function Of
Federal charters.
All Of the people, through Congress,
have exclusive rights to regulate inter-
state commerce. The States themselves
have given up such rights in the clear
est possible language of section OF
Article of the Constitution-"to regu-
late commerce among the several
States power delegated to Congress.
It is not easy, therefore, to understand
how State may authorize interstate
commerce as function of its CREATION
q State-chartered corporation
AS outlined by Senator OMahonev
there was nothing punitive in his pro-
posal, and the procedure once estab-
lished by Congress would operate rs
It now does in any State To star.
with Mr.. Hayward's assumption that
the National Government is out to de-
stroy interstate business, Is to place
the proposition beyond discussion. Place
1t on national control for national affairs
and it Is something to discuss.
We have been dealing with the sub
ject piecemeal for years. The Uniform
Negotiable Instruments Acts in the sew
eral States and the Uniform Bill of
Lading Act In Congress were nibbIes
at the problem and there have been
many others. some notably ineffective.
Sherman Antitrust Act Of 1890, Clay.
ton Act of 1914, acts for the Federal
Trade Commission of 1914 and the Inter-
state Commerce Commission, 1888;
Capper-Volstead Act. 1922; Anti-Dump-
ing Provision, 1916; Webb Export Trad.
Association Act, 1918; Packers and