Mr. WADE. I agree with what the Senfrom Maine has said on this subject. The ComDistCol have had a great many applications to establish this kind of incorporations. I really do not know anything new in principle that arises here. We have power, I suppose, to legislate in this District to the same extent that a State Legislature has in a State. not contrary to the Constitution of the States or repugnant to the principles of our Government, in this District, to exactly the extent that a State may do. The mere location of a corporation is not of very much consequence. suppose it makes very little di erence where an incorporation is establilshed. They can, in the absence of all authority of the State to the contrary, operate in any State to the same extent that an individual can, but always subject to the authority, limitation, and control of the State in which they set up their business. Indeed, it is common for our great corporations that have an extended business, which requiresa great deal of capital and a cat many persons to associate together proper y to carry it on, to operate in many of the States. That principleis familiartoevery body. There is tece cbrated life insurance company at Hartford, Connecticut, perhaps one of the largest and wealthiest corporations in the U.S., and I suppose it is in the full tide of operation in every State of the Union, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It is so with your banking corporations, your exress companies, and a great many others. [hey can do business anywhere. Whenever there is a legislative body that has power to incor porate a company, to give it perpetual succession, so thatitean go on and do itsbusiness, when it gets its charter, it is perfectly immaterial where it may be located. It must conform, of course, to the legislation of the States where it goes to do its business. Take a life insurance compang: if it undertakes to set up business in the State of NewYork it must have at least $200,000 of capital paid in, and that State imposes some other limitations; but these being complied'with the State permits them to go on and establish their branches there without any regard to where the main corporation is locate. So with other incor porations. I cannot see, therefore, that there is anything new in the principle of incorporating these institutions in the DistCol. We have as much power and authority to do it as a State Legislatnre has to do it in a State. Whether it shall be in the DistCol or in a State of this Union seems to me to be very unimportant. Whatever the terms and the restrictions are is always of importance. If, as the Senfrom Illinois says, we in corporated a company without any personal liability, we did wrong, and we should have done equally wrong in that if we had been legislating for a State. We.should not ive such a latitude as that; but we should place them under wholesome and wise restrictions, and then they are as safe in this District as anywhere else; and it brings us back barely to this question: shall we allow ourselves to give these acts of incorporation, or shall we turn the parties 011 to the States? I admit that the business maybe a little troublesome to us, but it is frequently a great convenience to do it here. Our whole legislation should be for the benefit of the people of the U.S and we can do his as amply, as justly, an We can do anything i into with as little objection as any State can. When the people apply to me as a legislator, and I can fin no reason why I may not do what they want as well as any other authority, I dp not feel like turning them off somewhere e so. This is 11111have to say on the question. If there is any objection to the bill it must be to the incorporation itself. That is simply associating wealth in a few hands in enabling them to do business, and it is just as objection able in a State as it is in this District. A eat commercial people, full of enterprise an of all kinds of usiness like the people of the U.S., have found that it is necessary to form corporations, and they will continue to do it, either in this District orin the States, and I have no objection to their doin it here. Therefore it is that we have passe a rent many of these acts of incorporation, and see no reason why we should cease to do it. If there are objections to the sweeping allowance given to this company I am for restricting it.