FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185  
186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   >>   >|  
power to the States, at least so far as it may be necessary to enable them to regulate or prohibit the actions of combinations in the States, even when engaged In interstate commerce; or, second, by perfecting the present dual system and establishing Federal supervision over State corporations engaged in interstate commerce by way of license and control; or, third, the most radical remedy of all, apparently adopted by the present administration, of surrendering entirely the State power over corporations to the Federal government, at least as to such corporations as might choose to take advantage of such legislation. This would result in a centralization of nearly all business under the control of the Federal government, as well as the removal of the great bulk of litigation from State to Federal courts. If not carefully guarded it would deprive the States not only of their power to tax corporations, but of their ordinary police powers over their administration. Such a radical step was unanimously opposed by the United States Industrial Commission in 1900, and by nearly all their expert witnesses, and was then, at least, only favored by the heads of the great trusts, Mr. Archbold, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Havemeyer.[1] But whichever way we look at it, there is no question that the problem of the modern trust is that of the corporation, both as to what laws shall regulate such a corporation, and whether they shall be acts of Congress, or State statutes, or both. [Footnote 1: For the full arguments on this most important question, the reader may be referred to the article by Horace L. Wilgus in the _Michigan Law Review_, February and April, 1904, and to the writer's debate with Judge Grosscup, printed in the _Inter-Nation Magazine_ for March, 1907.] X CORPORATIONS The earliest trading or business corporation in the modern sense now extant seems to have been chartered in England about the year 1600, though Holt in the monopoly case dates the Muscovy Company from 1401, and, despite the Roman civic corporations, has really no actual precedent in economic history; that is to say, as a phenomenon under which the greater part of business affairs was in fact conducted. Whether derived historically from the guild or the monastic corporation of the Middle Ages is a question merely of academic importance, for the business corporation rapidly became a very different thing from either; and, indeed, its most importan
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185  
186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

corporations

 

corporation

 

Federal

 

business

 

States

 

question

 
government
 

administration

 

modern

 

engaged


regulate
 

radical

 

commerce

 

present

 

interstate

 

control

 

CORPORATIONS

 

chartered

 
referred
 

extant


trading

 
earliest
 

article

 

Horace

 

Review

 
February
 

debate

 
writer
 

England

 

Nation


Magazine

 

printed

 

Michigan

 

Wilgus

 

Grosscup

 

Company

 

historically

 
monastic
 

derived

 

Whether


affairs
 
conducted
 

Middle

 
rapidly
 
academic
 
importance
 

greater

 

Muscovy

 

monopoly

 

economic