The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-09-17

est effect has been enacted, not by the
Democracy when in power, but by the Re-
publicans in Congress.
/ want TO call to your recollection few
incidents in the career of Mr.. BRYAN him
self and of his chief supporters which to
my mind establish conclusively, first, that
neither Mr. Bryan nor his party has the
ability to grapple with this great question
at all: and, second. that, even IL they had
the ability, the party is composed of such
elements that we could never expect any
relief at it's hands.
Last September trust conference was
held at Chicago and hundreds OF men of
every variety of political faith and of ev
cry occupation-n anufacturers. professors,
merchants and worldngmen-who had prac-
teal or theoretical knowledge of the SUBJ
ject-were invited TO be present and state
their views. Among others Mr. Bryan
was one of the guests, and in a speech de-
livered upon that occasion he stated the
remedy which he proposed. His object, he
said. was not to regulate trusts so as TO
prevent their depressing the people. He
said: THE remedy must go further; it must
be complete enough to prevent the organi-
zation of a monopoly" And in addition to
state laws (Which he admitted would not
be alone sufficient TO destroy monopolies)
he also proposed a federal remedy. He
said:
1.-The method that occurs to me is this:
That Congress should pass law providing
that no corporation organized in any State
should do business outside of the State
in which Ii Is organized until IL receives
from some power created by Congress a
license authorizing 1t to do business out
side of the State, then the license can
be granted upon conditions which WILL
in the first place, prevent the watering
of stock; in the second place, prevent
monopoly in any branch of business, and
third, provide for publicity as to all the
transactions and business of the corpora
tion.
voice: Colonel, would such law
be constitutional
Mr.. Bryan: II was going to come to
Nk,a<
/ mean to say is that Congress ought 10
pass such a law. If it is unconstitutional
and so declared by the Supreme Court, L
am in favor of an amendment to the Con-
stitution that will give to Congress power
to destroy every trust in the country.
1.-The first condition which / suggest is
that no water should be allowed in the
stock. Then the law should provide
for publicity. But l not willing to
| stop there | do not want TO go one or
| two steps, / want TO go all the way and
make a monopoly absolutely impossible.
| And therefore, as third condition, 1
| suggest that this license shall not be grant
| ed until the corporation shows that 1t has
not had a monopoly. and is not attempting
| monopoly of any such branch of Industry
| or of any article of merchandise-and then
provide Khat If the law is violated the
| license, can be revoked.
AN INADEQUATE REMEDY.
| On the same afternoon took occasion to
criticise the measures proposed by Mr.. Bryan,
| for it seemed to me that this measure
would be as ineffective for the destruction
| of trusts as the method adopted by Mrs
| Darlington to drive away the Atlantic
ocean by sweeping off the water with her
broom. and 1 stated the following objec-
| tons
VERY few corporations will be prevented
| from doing business by such a provision
| Every company which now exists can point
| to some competitor. Even the sugar trust,
| which once controlled 9S per cent. of the
| business in that line of industry had per
! cent. of competition The other trusts have
| a far greater proportion. Mr. Bryan him.
| self said that We had at present no Illus
tration of a complete monopoly The cor
| porations then can easily make the proof
| that they have no monopoly. and Ii GER
| tainly will not be hard for their officers
| to swear that they are not attempting tC
establish monopolies. 1t will be very diff
| ficult, on the other hand, to show tina,
| these statements are untrue.
But even If a license should be refused
| even If all the States should prohibit for
| eign corporations from doing business with
| in their borders, this would not 'annihilate
| the trusts. They might sell their goods tc
| a middle-man, who, If he should become
| the owner of property lawfully manufac
4 tured in his own State, could not under oul
| Federal Constitution be excluded from sell
| ing 1t in other States. Even If you were tC
| provide that a monopoly should not re-
cover the price of its goods still you could
| not annihilate the trusts 1t would be i'm
| portant for buyers to preserve their credit
| and they would hardly dare to take adj
| vantage of such law. Or. If Ii were found
| necessary, the trusts would sell for casn
So long as they could sell lower than an.
one else, they could still keep their present
| advantages.
1.-The States have been passing laws 70,
the abolition of trusts for more than ter
| years. AS early as 1894 twenty-five States
| had enacted statutes for this purpose, yet
| all these laws as well as the federal act
were found to be totally ineffective. The
| Supreme Court of the United States in the
| knight case-the case of the sugar trust
decided in regard to the Sherman antitrust
| law that it applied only to the agencies
| controlling transportation, and not 10 man
| ufacturng industries at all, even though
| the products of these industries were sold
| i'm many States. The court said that com.
| merce merely served manufacture to full
| fill it's functions and indicated that the
| Constitution had given Congress no power
over manufacturing trusts. and that the
Sherman act had not prohibited them. TIC
do this therefore, an amendment to the
| Constitution will be required.
| Now amendment to the Constitu
| ton has to be adopted by two-thirds OF
both houses of Congress and ratified By
| be very hard to secure such an amend
| ment And If we are to have federal leg
| islation and federal courts controlling oul
manufacturin industries, industries which
now affect nearly all the agencies by which
| we live and move and have our being, il
| is evident that State lines will become very
| shadowy in the presence of these great in
| dustrial forces of a consolidated Republic
THE ONLY ADEQUATE POWER.
my friends. are we ready for tha
| change? Judge Harlan pointed out in hi.
dissenting opinion in the knight case tn,
| necessity for federal control if the trust.
were to be overthrown. If one great com
| I'll.
sugar industry, another the -four mills
| another the elevator business, another tn,
cotton business, and so on, what power
| would be adequate to deal with such or
CARNATIONS except the federal power? Blu
| it seems to me that even If all corpora
| tions could be destroyed (Which l think /.
| impossible) we could not even then abolish
| the trusts If the Standard Oil Compan,
| were dissolved the men who control i
| might, with their vast capital. organize
| partnership to carry on the same bushes.
i'm the same way. or. if that should b,
made illegal, what is there to prevent tn,
| stockholders of the great companies from
| loaning the value of their stock TO som,
manager, agreeing to receive in lieu of in
| terest a proportionate part of the profits
of the Joint adventure? If you abolish on,
form of combination another will take IL.
place The trusts cannot be ami
| hilated but as TO their regulation / hav.
no doubt that our people will at last fine
remedies which shall be sufficient to coun
teract many of the injurious consequence.
of monopoly
Mr.. Bryan Immediately rose to reply