In ratifying the Constitution four States (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Rhode Island) recommended that it be amended by a provision that Congress should erect no company (or no company of merchants) "with exclusive advantages of commerce," and New York asked for a further prohibition of all grants of monopolies." Attempts to carry such measures were made in the first Congress and renewed in 1793, but without success." It was in the apprehension that these proposals indicated that, in truth, lay the great barrier of all to the multiplication of business corporations under the political conditions then existing. The people, as has been already said, were afraid of them. As they reviewed their history in England, they saw that a monopoly had walked in the shadow of each. They were in their very nature embodiments of special privileges. In 1784 the leaders of each of the great parties that were already forming were before the New York legislature with petitions for bank charters. Chancellor Livingston sought one for a land bank; Hamilton another for one of discount and deposit. We may be sure that political influence was not wanting to back these petitions. Logrolling was not then unknown. Both, however, were rejected, and, although Hamilton and his associates had gone so far that they proceeded to set up business as a voluntary association by the name of the Bank of New York, no charter could be got for it until 1791. The public jealousy of corporations against which Hamilton and Livingston could avail nothing in New York was felt, though not everywhere with equal force throughout the Union. It was not abated by the adoption of the Federal Constitution. There was but one thing that could effectually remove it. That was to remove the cause. To deprive the corporate franchise of the character of a special privilege and make its possession free to all-this was to be the next great step in the evolution of American combinations of capital for business purposes. The political events of 1789 had given them new assurances of security. Almost immediately their number and magnitude began to multiply greatly. The a Journals of Congress, XIII, 167, 172, 189, 182; Elliott's Debates, I, 336. b Report of Am. Hist. Assn. for 1896, Pt. II, 253. Works of Hamilton, I, 414. H. Doc. 461, pt 1—18 business corporation, however, could not wholly shake off the burden of popular suspicion until put upon a new footing by aid from an unexpected quarter. North Carolina had been one of the sturdiest upholders of the rights of the people. She had unwillingly acceded to the establishment of a national government. She had failed to convince Congress that it ought to ask the people to forbid it to grant monopolies. In 1795 she struck out into a new field for herself and gave the modern world an object lesson in political science. For the first time since the beginnings of the Roman Empire," a sovereign State offered incorporation for business purposes to any who desired it, freely and on equal terms. As became a government venturing on so novel an experiment she confined her offer to a single class of business enterprises the construction of canals-but she gave a generous franchise, including the right of eminent domain, providing only that the works should become public property whenever the shareholders should have received their capital with interest at 6 per cent.' The example thus set was soon imitated by other States, and the vast number of business corporations formed under general laws that the nineteenth century brought forth to change the face of the United States witness the wisdom of making freedom of incorporation one of our fundamental political institutions. a Up to 1795 general incorporation laws had been restricted to the formation of religious, charitable, or literary corporations. Baldwin, Modern Political Institutions, 148, 174, 193, 194. b Laws of North Carolina, Ed. 1821, 1, 769. THE NATIONAL CANAL POLICY. By LINDLEY M. KEASBEY. The question of isthmus transit has been before the civilized world since the discovery of America. From this time to the present four different canal policies have been elaborated and to some extent applied. In the order of their historical succession these canal policies may be named: The national European policy, the Anglo-American policy, the international policy, and the national American policy. It will be enough if I set forth the historical antecedents and indicate the political consequents of the four canal policies in the order named. THE NATIONAL EUROPEAN POLICY. The national European policy can only be called a canal policy by stretching the phrase to include all the varied schemes of isthmus transit that were then devised. Among these, canals figured as projects, but in practice interoceanic communication was effected by means of river routes, pack trails, and wagon roads. To appreciate the canal policy of these days we must call to mind the motives making for mercantilism and consider the conditions of absolute monarchy. To establish their mercantile systems and succeed in their struggles for political supremacy, it was imperative upon the absolute monarchs to maintain communication by sea with their colonial sources of supply and establish factories in distant countries for the acquisition of raw produce and treasure of all kinds. At first Europe's efforts were directed entirely toward the East, with a view to acquiring the wealth of the Indies. Newly discovered America was consequently regarded, in first instance, as a barrier land before Asia. With this idea in mind the Spanish monarchs sought first to solve |