The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1899-09-16

them. 1t would be idle to say tina
some raise prices and some deprecia L
them if we did not prescribe some test
by which we could distinguish between
the two The test is to ascertain
whether the combination of capita
flourishes through government aid oi
without it, for any industrial enterprise
which dominates the market without ai(
from the government must do SC
through cheapening the product, under.
selling competitors. An industry which
dominates the market by the favor OF
government, direct or indirect, cannot
be forced to cheaper prices.
mo, there are three ways in which
the government interferes in the trade
of individuals in this country, one is by
patent laws. l will not waste time in
discussing patent laws. The other
means by which the government inter
feres is by tariff. Now, | believe that
every person can concede, whether he
believes in high tariff or free trade, that
so far as trusts are concerned the taiift
operates to favor them in this way. 1t
operates to restrict competition in the
production of any article to those en-
gagged in it in this country, If q trust
or combina ton is to be formed mani
festly it aids the enterprise where the
field Of competition is originally limited.
1t is easier to make a combination be-
tween the producers in one country than
in all countries and to that extent the
tariff favors trusts.
There is still a third and serious
question which | believe is vastly more
extensive in it's results than this tariff
in the favor of trusts. And | refer to
those favors which are extended to GER
tain industries or great corporations
enjoying government franchises. The
worst feature of this outrage which is
perpetrated on a certain class of the
community is that it is shrouded in
mystery. No person can enjoy a favor
at the hands of any company enjoying
a public franchise except at the expense
of another.
Government is always just and alc
ways benefcent when 1t Is absolutely
impartial. The agencies that it empow-
ers to discharge functions essentially
public must be impartial in that service
to every human being within the limits
of the state. If one persons attains
rates which are excessively Favorable, if
his goods are transported at loss. why,
other men using that same facility must
make good the loss. What Is the rem
edy? Some have suggested municipal
ownership. | concede the principle of
ownership The only excuse
for empowering a private corporation
to discharge a public function is that
the service will be more efficient The
question. then, of municipal ownership
is mere question of expediency.
There are many grave questions to
be considered before a municipal owner
ship could be reduced to practical opsr-
alton | consider the suggestion of mu-
nicipal ownership as highly ingenious
and highly interesting but the sugges-
ton of a constitutional convention to
frame a new constitution for the United
States is somewhat remote. Now is
there any practical remedy that this
can suggest that can be put
In force tomorrow by any legislature
that happens to be In session? The
remedy is simply to define a practical
serious one. and then you
enforce the penalty. An officer of a
granting a special favor to
any person who has right to use that
possession on equal terms with every
body else ought to be held guilty of
serious felony.
A specific enactment that special
rate granted to any one not enjoyed by
others is a felony, and proper means
to punish it will do something towards
checking it and my friends, this is not
any inconsderate statement, it Is
crime of the first magnitude. The pub
ic official in the control of any greaS
public franchise who gives to one man
opportunities at the expense of the
,ther, robs that other party if not of
he property in his possession, the OPP
to acquire property Now,
With a statute authorizing and making
t the right of every shipper of every
person using a public franchise to have
disclosed to him at any time every con.
ract and agreement made with any
,ther person you will find there will
,e little difficulty about avoiding the
of the penal statute, for
t will not be transgressed Notwith-
standing that year after year we see
vidences of the fraud which has char
cterized the management of corpora
ions / don't believe that in the whole
history of jurisprudence there has been
case in which a director has been
compelled to answer for it, 1t has al
Ways been to me a source of profound |
egret that while the courts show so |
much ingenuity in devising iniunctions
o prevent corporations from being dis
urbed by their employees, they have not |
hown one-half that ingenuity in devils |
ne methods to prevent their being rob-
ed by their directors