24 PATTERSON—THE PROBLEM OF THE TRUSTS. [April 2, 
enforce with regard to foreign corporations all, and more than all, 
the restrictions which it enforces with regard to corporations of its 
own creation. On the other hand, the United States, save as the 
domestic government of the District of Columbia and the Terri- 
tories, cannot even grant a charter of incorporation, except as a 
means incidental to the exercise by the United States of a power of 
government,’ and it can, but only under the power of regulating 
foreign and interstate commerce, control the operations of a 
corporation chartered by a State. It does not avail to say that the 
legislation of a State can have no extra-territorial force, and that in 
order to have a rule of uniform application throughout the country 
there must be Congressional legislation, for the conclusive reply is 
that every State, under the Constitution, is entitled as of right to 
determine for itself by what agencies and under what conditions 
commodities shall be manufactured or sold within its territory,’ 
subject only to the paramount right of the United States to levy 
duties and taxes, and to regulate transportation. Nor is it to the 
interest of the people that a Constitutional amendment should be 
adopted vesting in the United States the proposed power of 
regulation. The fatal facility of compromise as shown in the 
history of the slavery question and the silver issue, and exhibited 
in every tariff act, and the lack of appreciation of the demands of 
legitimate business as evidenced by the failure of Congress to do 
away with the antiquated sub-treasury system and to authorize an 
elastic currency, demonstrate the unwisdom of vesting in Congress 
a power which, if exercised, may injuriously affect the business 
interests of the country. 
So far as concerns Congressional legislation under the Constitu- 
tion as it now is, it would seem that the Supreme Court has put the 
question at rest, for it has decided® that ‘‘ the relief of the citizens 
of each State from the burden of monopoly and the evils resulting 
from the restraint of trade among such citizens were left with the 
States to deal with ;’’ and that an organization to manufacture and 
sell is a subject matter of State regulation, for the reason that, 
while it may bring the operations of commerce into play, it affects 
1 McCulloch v, Maryland, 4 Wheat., 316. 
?U. S. v. De Witt, 9 Wall., 41; McGuire v. The Commonwealth, 3 za@., 387 ; 
Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S., 501. 
» 
3U. S. v. E. C. Knight Company, 156 U. S,, 1, 11. 
