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

would make any answer to IL. II Mr..
Bryan, however. were really seeking
light and were proposing to get at the best
solution of the question, 1 thought IL pos
sible he might be willing 10 discuss the
matter. If he didn't desire this, but
merely wanted the trust question as
political issue upon which he could secure
votes by general denunciation of trusts
without reference to his ability to regulate
or destroy them, then / knew that he
wouldn't answer the letter. No answer
came.
DEMOCRATIC INSINCERITY.
Mr.. Bryan, moreover, caused to be in
serted in the Democratic platform most
of his impracticable plan. for we find the
following declaration. taken almost verba-
tim, from the speech which he failed 10 sus-
tain in argument:
Existing laws against trusts must be
enforced and more stringent ones must
be enacted providing for publicity as TO
the affairs of corporations engaged In IN
terstate commerce and requiring all cor
porations to show, before doing business
outside of the State of their origin, tnat
they have no water in their stock and that
they have not attempted and are not at
tempting to monopolize any branch or pusi-
ness for the production OF any articles OF
merchandise"
You will notice, however, that there is
one point in Mr.. Bryans speech which is
omitted in the platform of the convention
He said that il his proposed license law
were declared unconstitutional by the SUI
preme Court. he was in favor of an amend
ment to the Constitution that would give
| to Congress power to destroy every trust
| in the country. In this speech he recog-
nfzed that it was extremely proDaDle tnat
| the Supreme Court would decide that
license law such as he proposed would De
unconstitutional, for in the knight case
| that court decided that the Sherman anti
| trust law did not apply TO manufacturing
| industries at all, and intimated that the
constitution
power over such industries, even though
| they sold their products in several States
Now, if Sherman's antitrust law could
| not apply 10 manufacturing corporations,
| it seems very evident that Bryan's anti
| trust license law could not apply TO manu-
| featuring corporations under the present
Constitution. Mr. Bryan recognized TINS
| and also recognized that the trusts couid
| not be destroyed except by congressional
| action; that, In the words of Judge Harian
no power would be adequate to deal WIN
such organizations except the federal
| power. Mr.. Bryan, in his answer 10 my
| objections said
.'But suppose the law is passed and held
unconstitutional: then we can amend the
| Constitution. The gentleman suggests that
| II is a difficult thing to get two-thirds
! of both houses and three-fourths OF the
| States to favor such an amendment That
| is true 1t is a difficult thing. but if the
| people want to destroy the trusts, they
| can control two-thirds of both houses and
! three-fourths of the States.
/
| TENDER of last year, but now the Dem D
| cratic platform is silent regarding any
| amendment of the Constitution. The Dem
| ocratic platform approves the rest or Mr..
| about his plan for amending the Constr
| tuition. Why is this? You may, perhaps,
remember that during the last Congress
| an amendment was absolutely proposed,
| for giving TO Congress the full power 10
| control the trusts. This as we have al
| ready seen. is the only possible way by
| which Mr.. Bryan's purpose TO annihiiate
| the trusts can ever be accomplished. BY
| whom this amendment proposed? BY
the Democrats who say that they desire the
| humiliation Of the trusts? No.
BEATEN BY DEMOCRATS.
1t was proposed by Republicans, who are
| accused of protecting and defending the
trusts. But the joint resolution propos-
ing this amendment was defeated. BY
| whom was it defeated? BY the party
which, under Mr.. Bryan's leadership. is
now engaged in harmless denunciations of
| monopoly,-all the Democratic members
except five voted against the amendment
For We must remember that Democracy
| has its strongest support in the Southern
| States, where it's members still cling to the
| doctrine of State sovereignty. These men
| do not want Congress to have any more
| power than it has already. They do not
| want Congress to interfere with their
| and defeated the amendment proposed by
| Republicans, giving Congress control OF
the trusts. They are telling the people
| now that the Republicans were not SINGER.
| liz proposing this amendment to the Con-
| stitution l know of no better way tC
| judge mems motives than by their acts
| / know of no better way to judge of the
| motives of party than by the votes OF
the representatives of that party in Con-
| gress. The votes which were cast in favor
of putting the control of the trusts in the
| Of no mil x hiah
| troll them were for the most part Repub-
lican votes; and the votes given for with
| holding that power from the only bod,
| which can ever annihilate trusts were fol-
the most part Democratic votes. A tree
is known by its fruits; and the real de-
sire of the Democracy for the annihila-
ton of the trusts is best shown by Its
action in regard to the only measure by
| which the trusts ever be annihilated
The men who depend upon Democracy t
overthrow these giant combinations are
leaning upon broken reed.
On the other hand, all legislation which
is aimed at the destruction of trusts and
which is ineffective for that purpose
a great deal of evil. 1t will result in the
breaking up of existing enterprises and
industries and the formation of new COM
binations in place of the old, the throwing
out of hundreds of thousands of men en-
gagged i'm these great industries, the break
ing of contracts. the forfeiture of property
panic. disaster, ruin, while i'm the end, the
IN
affected On the other hand. the Republic.
an party, controlled by men who are not
like MIR. Bryan-mere dreamers and the
orfsts-will find a way, so far as may be
necessary. to mitigate the evils of indus
trial combination without destroying their
power for good. And l feel well satisfied
that the good sense of the American peo.
pie will not turn over their vast interests tt
industrial anarchy under the leadership OF
man who has not the slightest practical
knowledge of the great questions whicf
he asks us to commit so largely to his
keeping.
RESULT IN TEXAS.
AS an example of the manner in which
the Democratic party deals with the trust
question 1 would call your attention t.
the statutes recently enacted in Texas
The provisions of the Texas statutes are
so comprehensive that. if literally enforced
they would destroy all industry The act
| prohibits any person or association from
being party to any agreement TO regu
late or fix the price, amount or qualit,
| that IL Is hard TO see how you could sci
| price and being guilty of criminal conspir
acy. monopoly is declared TO be an,
combination OF any valuable thing whereby
prices may be fixed, the quantity OIL
| quality OF anything may be controlled. II
| is hard TO see how two persons could unite
| their capital or skill in partnership without
| being subject to indictment. By another
| section of the Texas law the owner of
patent who leases or operates IL In his owr