The Goodland republic., 1899-09-29
LIeenrInr Corporations.

! snail not De peTmlLCeQ 20 tres pass upon
the rights Of others in their efforts to
secure advantages for themselves. 1
believe that sOcietyis interested in the
independence Of every citizen. Society
is interested in this because if a man
dies and leaves no provisions for his
wife and children, the burden falls
upon society.
81 believe that the principle Of mo-
nOpoly finds its inspiration in the de-
sire Of men to secure by monopoly
what they cannot secure IN the open
field Of competition.
snow, some have suggested that to
)put everything on the free list that
( trusts make would destroy trusts. do
not agree with this statement as it is
| made so broadly. I believe that the
/ high tariff has aided the trusts to col
lect more than the trusts otherwise
could collect, but I do not believe that
you could destroy all trusts by putting
all trust made articles upon the free
| list. Why? Because, If an article can
be produced in this country as cheapIy
as it can be produced abroad, the trust
could exist without the benefit Of any
tariff at all, although it could not ex-
tort so much as it could with the tariff,
and while some relief may come from
notifications Of the tariff, we cannot
destroy monopoly until We lay the ak
at the root Of the tree, and make mo-
nOpoly impossible by law.
ain the first place, every state has or
should have the right to create any
private corporation which In the judg-
ment of the people Of the state is con
ducive to the welfare OF the people OF
that state. In the second place, the
state has, or should have, the right to
prohibit any foreign corporation from
doing business in the state and it
ought to have or has the right to i'm
pose such restrictions and limitations
as the people Of the state may think
necessary upon any foreign corporation
doing business in the state.
81 believe in addition to a state re-
medy there must be q federal remedy,
and believe that congress has, or
should have, the power to place such
restrictions and limitations, even to
the point Of prohibition, upon any cor
pOratiOn organized in one state that
wants TO do business outside Of the
state.
snow, believe that this concurrent
remedy viii reach the difficulty, that
the people of every state shall first de-
eide whether they want to create q
corporation; that they shall, secondly,
decide whether they want any outside
corporation to do business in the state,
and, if so, upon what conditions; and,
thirdly, that congress shall exercise
the right to place upon every corpora
ton doing business outside Of the state
in which it is organized such limita-
tiOns and restrictions as may be neces-
sary for the protection Of the public
good.
"One method for the annihiIation Of
trusts has occurred to me and to me it
seems a complete method. 1t is this:
That congress should pass a law pro-
vidinR that no corporation organized
in any state should do business outside
Of the state in which it is organized
until it receives from some power crea-
ted by congress a license authorizing
1t TO do business outside Of its own
state.
Now, if the corporations must come
to this body created By congress to Sc /
cure permission to do business outside
OF the state then that license can be
granted upon condition which will. in
the first place, prevent the watering Of /
stock; in the second place prevent mo-
nopoly in any branch Of business; and
third, provide for publicity as TO all Of |
the transactions and business Of the
"You can provide for publicity and |
that annually or at such times as the
corporation shall make returns Of its |
business and when you provide for
so that the public shall know
just what there is in the corporation,
you will 90 another long step towards 1
the obstruction Of the principle Of mo
nOpOly.
-As third condition, 1 suggest that
this license shall not be granted until
the corporation shows that it has not
had s-monOpOly and is not attempting
a monopoly Of any branch Of industry
OF any article Of merchandise and then
provide that if the law is violated the
license can be revoked w. J. Bryan.
ct Chicago antitrust convention.