The record-union., 1899-09-17

"I would not occupy the time again
but for the fact that the gentleman
frem Indiana (Mr. Foulke) has referred
to a plan which l suggested and I am
afraid that he does not fully under
stand it. My plan was this, first that
the State should have the right to ere
ate whatever private corporations the
people of the State think best; second,
that the State has, or should have, the
right to impose such limitations upon
an outside corporation as the people OF
the State may think necessary for their
protection; third, that the Federal Gov
ernment has or should have the right
to impose such restrictions as Congress
may think necessary upon any corpora
tion which does business outside of the
! State in which it is organized. In other
words, / would preserve to the people
of the State all the rights they now
have and at the same time have Con-
gresS exercise a concurrent remedy,
then supplement the State remedy. L
would not take away from the people
Of the State any right now existing,
but 1 would have the Federal Govern
ment and the State Government exer-
else the powers that may be necessary
to annihilate the monopoly. I do not
agree with the gentleman that You can
not annihilate a monopoly.
Nov / am not sure the remedy l pro-
pose is constitutional. I am not sure
that the Constitution would prohibit
such an Act of Congress as suggest.
I suppose Congress should say that
whenever a corporation wants to do
business outside the State it must apply
10 Nd f,o,. 1x-f f~rn
by Congress for the purpose license 10
do business. Suppose the law should
provide three conditions upon which the
license should be issued. First, that the
evidence shall show that there is no
water in the stock; second, that the evil
dence should show that this corpora
tion has not in the past and is not at
! tempting now to monopoliZe any
branch of any article of merchandise;
third, providing for that publicity
which everybody has spoken of and
about which everybody agrees. Sup
| pose that is done. Who is here to say
| that such a law would be Inconstitu-
| tional?
"The Supreme Court in deciding the
Knight case. did not say that broader
| law than the present one would be un-
| constitutional. It is true there are
| things in the decision which lead TO
| that, but unless the question is pre-
sented to the court you cannot say that
the court has passed upon it."
At the conclusion of Colonel 8ryan
address, Bourke Cochran arose and
started to speak from his seat in the
hall, but in response to cheers and calls
/ to come to the 'front.' he, too, took the
platform.
! Mr.. Cochran said in part:
i Just one moment while I express my
| complete concurrence in much that M
! Bryan has said. If there be mo-
| nopoly that oppresses, 1 believe thar
there is no constitutional limitation,
! there is no provision of Government,
thereis no power on earth against these
people redressing a wrong when it be-
/ comes a wrong.
"The question to which I think the
attention of this conference should be
directed is whether this one exists, and
/ where it is. If you want competition,
must not somebody succeed in it? VIII
you suppress the man because he ex-
GELS another so far that he constitutes
| a monopoly? Are you going to place
| limits upon excellency?
IF we realize for the moment tha1
this is an age of improvement; that the
conditions of men are growing better
| and better, we ought to hesitate aWnlie
| before we change and take the side'
maybe, for one Of fanciful experl-
ments.''