Kootenai County Republican. (Rathdrum, Idaho) 1899-1903, 1900-04-20
TRUSTS AND CORPORATIONS.

At the Outburst's request. T.. G.
Macdonald, of Spokane, made the fol-
lowing reply TO what Bryan said In re-
gard to Trusts and Corporations, In his
speech delivered. at Spokane on the
30th Of March:
zone might suppose from a pcrusal
~ Mi. Eryan's observations ON trusts
that his party was the only one which
has ever given the subject considcra-
ton, and that the republican party Is
solely responsible for all trust evils. A
large portion OF his remarks Is devoted
more 10 abuse, inycctivc, inapt SMILES
and an effort 70 inllame mems passions
and preludices, than To u calm and
comprehensive argument OF the ques-
tion, This mode of presenting the
matter Is unworthy of u man aspiring
10 the highest Office In the land, from
whom We have right To expect a dis
cusalon OF all public affairs from the
broadcast and most statesmanlike
standpoint.
"Mr. Hryan's statement that adher-
cnts Ut the gold standard are, of con-
sequence, advocates Of trusts, Is erro-
neous. Presidents Harrison, Cleveland
si'th III llltNNstktN w AttleIfSS,
have each recommended legislation To
prevent combinations for the purpose
OF sitting competition and monopoliz-
Ing the production or sale OF articles
OF commerce. In lsga the republicans
Of Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massa-
chusetts, Nebraska and Ohio have In
their respective state platforms In
serted planks directed against trusts.
The republicans enacted the federal
ANTITRUST law of 1891, and have ut
all times enforced Ii So far as state
rights permit None az the political
parties have referred IN their national
platforms ta trusts, except the Chica.
gu democratic platform OF lso6, and
that plank was really directed against
railroad consolidation ana pooling.
The populists, strange 90 say, have
never touched upon the subject in n
national platforms not even IN 1876
when the evil was rs apparent as now
aud the federal antitrust law. then In
furec several years, WAS known to he
an incomplete remedy. The question
has never been thrust into national
politics rs a welidetined party issue.
The difficulties arising from the cN-
istence OF trusts should no, hc Il mat
ter ~ strict party solution, and no one
party Will ever have cnntldcd To il the
ameliuration OF It's abuses.
IN view of the phenomenal pros.
perity of THE past tao or three wears,
the organization NJ large corporations
and trusts followed as 4 necessary Sc
qucnce; aud the Bryan party. realik.
Ing that the republicans were respon.
sihlc for the country's prosperity.
speclpuSly argue that they are likewist,
responsible for the trusts. and eagerly
seize any opportunity To make polite
al capital ont of n question which the
republican party alone has considered
from n national standpoint. The re-.
publican party, instead Of wasting its
energies in blind deaunriatian Of
trusts, from which nothing can he
gained and which In MA wise contrib.
0tes To n solution Of the problem. has
sought, through congressional enact.
lnent and state legislation. To protect
the people from undue encroachmcnts
ON the part or the trusts.
| The remedy suggested by BRYAN IN
OF doubtful efficacy: whether congress
can act in the manner Indicated is ex.
ceedingls predetermined, To SAY the
least: and the effectiveness of the pro.
posed course Is open 10 serious cues
ton.
! The present federal law. by reason
OF constitutional limitations, cannot
! teslrh trusts operating solely within u