ATTITUDE OF GOVERNMENT TOWARD TRUSTS 223
ing that this corporation could not do business in the state of Kansas, Judge Valentine said :
At the very creation of this supposed corporation, its creators spurned it from the land of its birth as illegitimate and unworthy of a home among its kindred and sent it forth a wanderer on foreign soil. Is the state of Kansas bound by any kind of courtesy, or comity, or friendship, or kindness to Penn- sylvania to treat this corporation better than its creator is bound ?
No rule of comity will allow one state to spawn corporations, to send them forth into other states to be nurtured and do business there, when the state first among states will not allow them to do business within its own boundaries. 1
This illustrates one of the tendencies in state legislation on this important topic, and the lack of uniformity and comity is amply demonstrated. For this reason, then, that legislation, already lacking in uniformity, is becoming still more adverse, national legislation should be substituted for state legislation upon this topic which has passed from local to national interest.
Considerable discussion has been indulged in as to the power of Congress to legislate for the control of the industrial com- binations. Many have expressed the opinion that an amendment to the federal constitution is a necessary prerequisite. The weight of authority, however, seems to be that no such amend- ment is necessary, and that Congress has ample power to deal with the problem under its powers over interstate commerce. So says F. J. Stimson, the legal adviser to the industrial com- mission ; 2 E. W. Huffcutt, of Cornell University; 3 and Attorney- General Knox expressed himself as follows at Pittsburg, Pa., October 14, last :
Conceding that the present law is not effective throughout the situation, we come to the final alternative : May not Congress, under the existing con- stitutional grants, amend and extend the law, and thus remedy the defects, and so effectively regulate national and foreign commerce as to prevent the stifling of competition, the regulating of output and price, and the restraining of national and international trade ? If the answer to this question should be in the affirmative, a second question follows : How might Congress so amend the present law ?
1 Land Grant Railway and Trust Co. vs. Board of County Commissioners, Coffey County, 6 Kansas, 149.
- Report of Industrial Commission, Vol. XIX, p. 628. 3 2bid., p. 712.
