Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1899-09-29

oily has been lowering prices in order to rid
itself of competitors; but when II has rid it
self of competitors, what is going to be the
result?
1.-The primary cause of monopoly is the
love of money and the desire to secure the
fruits of monopoly; but believe that fall
ing prices caused by a rising dollar have
contributed to this desire and intensified it,
because people with their plants, seeing the
fall in prices, and measuring the loss on in
vestments, have looked about for some
means by which they could protect them
selves from this loss, and they have Joined
together In combinations to hold up prices
in order to protect their investments from
a loss which would not have occurred but
for the rise in the value of dollars and the
fall in the level of prices (Applause)
Another thing that, to my judgment. has
aided monopoly is high tariff. Nobody
can dispute that a tariff law, an import
duty, ena b!es trust to charge for it's prod
uct. the price of similar foreign product.
plus the tariff.
Touches ON the Tariff.
Now, some have suggested that to put
everything on the free list that trusts make
would destroy the trusts. i do not agree
with this statement, as it is made SO broad
ly- I believe that the high tariff has been
the means of eXtortion; that ii has aided
the trust to collect more than the trust
otherwise could collect. But I do not be-
Heve that you could destroy all trusts by
putting all trust-made articles on the free
list. Why? Because, if an article can be
produced in this country as cheapiy as it
can be produced abroad, then the trust
could exist, without the benefit of any tariff
at all, although it could not extort 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
-ay the ak at the root of the tree, and make
monopoly impossible by law. (Applause)
Concurrent Remedies Needed.
Now, / believe that we ought to have
they should be concurrent remedies. In the
first place, every state has or should have
the right to create any private corporation
which in the justice of the people of the
state is conducive to the welfare of the peo-
pie of that state. I believe that we can
safely intrust to the people of a state the
settlement of a question which concerns
them. If they create corporation and t
they can destroy that corporation, and we
can safely trust them both to create and
annihilate If conditions make annihilations
necessary.
should have, the right to prohibit any for
eisn corporation from doing business in the
state, and 1t ought to have, or has, the right
to impose such restrictions and iimita tons
as the people of the state may think neces-
sary upon any foreign corporation doing
business In the state. In other words, the
people OF the state not only should have
right to create the corpora tons they want,
but they should be permitted to protect
themselves from any outside corpora ton.
But do not think this is sufficient be-
HeVe, in addition to a state remedy, there
must be federal remedy, and / believe that
place such restrictions and Iimita tions, even
to the point of prohibition, upon any cor
pora ton organized in one state that wants to
do business outside of the state. say that
congress has, or should have, power to
place upon that corporation such limita-
lions and restrictions. even to the point OF
prohibition, as may to congress seem neces-
sary for the protection of the public good.
State Should Decide.
Now, I believe that these concurrent
remedies will reach the difficulty, that the
people of every state shall first decide
whether they want to create a 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 cor
poration doing business outside of the state
in which 1t is organized such limitations
and restrictions may be necessary f0r
the protection of the public good.
Il do not believe that the people of one
state can rely upon the people of another
state in the management of corpora tons.
One method has occurred to me, and to me
1t seems complete method. 1t may not
commend itself to you. If you have some
thing better 1 shall accept it in the place of
this which am about to suggest. But the
method that occurs to me is this:
THAT congress should pass law provid-
ing 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 created by congress a Ii
cenSe authorizing it to do business outside
of its own state. (Applause.) Now, if the
corporation must come to this body created
by congress to secure permission to do bust
ness outside the state, then that license can
be granted upon condition, which will. in
uyaf arr of
stock: in the second place, prevent monop-
oily in any branch of business, and third,
provide for publicity as to all of the trans
actions and business of the corporation.
Constitution Might BE Changed.
IF such law is unconstitutional and SO
declared by the supreme court, am in IA
Vor of an amendment to the constitution
that will give to congress power to destroy
every trust in the country. (ApplauSe.)
What government gives the government
can take away. What the government Gre
ates it can control, and l insist that both
the state government and the federal gov
eminent must protect the God-made man
from the man-made man whom we started
out with. (Applause.)
II have faith that these questions will be
settled and settled right but want to pro-
test against this doctrine that the trust is
natural outgrOWth of natural laws. 1t is
mott The trust is the natural outgrowth
or unnatural conditions created by man.
made laws. (Applause.) There are some
who would defend everything, good or bad,
on the ground that 1t is part of destiny
(applause) and you cannot inquire into it,
The fact that it is proves that it is right;
the fact that it is proves that it has come to
stay, and the most potent argument that
was ever made in defense of a vicious sys-
tenn was not that it was right and ought to
stay, but that it has come to stay whether
you like 1t or not l say that is the most DO
tent argument that has ever been advanced
in behalf of an error-it is here; it has come
to stay; what are you going to DO about it?
Should Test Public Questions.
Il believe that in civilized society the
question is not what is, but what ought to
be (app,ause), and that every proposition
must be arraigned at the bar of reason. If
you can prove that thing is good let it
stay. but If you cannot prove that it is good