Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 9.djvu/236

 222 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

of the Union, and 1 dare say that of the 183 industrial combi- nations enumerated in the twelfth census none operate in one state alone. Not only are their operations across state lines, but their stock is also owned throughout the United States. So, from that one standpoint alone, it would seem that a proper subject for national consideration was presented.

But there is another reason why federal control would be preferable to the present scheme. It is a notorious fact that there is no uniformity in state legislation concerning industrial combinations. For instance, Massachusetts requires "public" publicity of all corporations. New Jersey requires only " private" publicity; that is, gives only the stockholder the right of inquiring into corporate conditions. Different states likewise differ as to what constitutes the proper basis of capitalization. Not only is there this lack of uniformity, but there appears to be a tendency toward a still wider diversion. James B. Dill, in the address above referred to, sums up the situation very clearly, and I quote his words:

We find some charter-granting states legislating for the following classes of corporations :

1. Corporations organized primarily for the purpose of doing business outside the state.

2. Corporations organized for the purpose of doing without the state business which is forbidden within the state which created them.

3. Those formed for the purpose of doing their business as an entirety outside the state, being specifically forbidden by their charters from operat- ing or carrying on such business in the state which created them.

4. For the express purpose of doing business in evasion, sometimes in violation, of the law of a state into which they purpose to go and operate.

On the other hand, we have states attempting to tax property of corpo- rations as the state of New York in the case of United Verde Copper Co. (People ex rel. U. V. C. Co. vs. Feitner, 54 App.Di-v., 217) not within their limits and therefore taxed elsewhere ; we have some states attacking domestic and foreign corporations with laws intending to make it difficult to associate capital for commercial operations too large for individuals.

The creation of the Land Grant Railway and Trust Co. by Pennsylvania in 1870 gave that company the right to exercise banking powers " in any state, territory, or country except the state of Pennsylvania." In writing the opinion in a case decid-