The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1900-06-14

A party without dependence upon
public esteem can face without much
grief a position of dishonor, hoping
that it may even be more endeared
to the ignorant and to the vicious by
its demonstrated badness. Perhaps
half unconsciorsly, Democratic lea
ders are just now chuckling over
the idea that they can pretend to be
as hostile to trusts as any other
party. individuals in either party
will, of course, be found in close re-
lation with one monopoly or another.
The party must be judged by its act
as a body, and if the Democrats
voted against constitutional amend
ment in the House they can point to
the fact that they voted for a bill
protesting to reach the same end.
No matter how extravaganza the
claim, it will answer with voters who
do no thinking, as with those who
are always drawn into closer relations
with any party by proof that it is
secretly at war with honesty, public
decency and civil order.
The Democratic position is not,
however, SO strong as some leaders
suppose. By far the greater part of
the opposition to corporate monopo-
lies throughout the country is
thoroughly honest, if really ignorant
of the conditions will make some cor
porations as helpful as others are
hurtful to the public. Not only
Democratic leaders but plain, every
day Democratic voters have sense
enough to see that an amendment
granting power to destroy vicious
monopolies has a different meaning
from a bill attempting to do the same
thing without grant of constitutional
power. If Congress has ample power
without constitutional amendment,
then the bill may have some virtue.
But if it has not, or has only INSULT
cient power, then voting for the i'm
potent bill and voting against the
amendment granting power is pre-
cisely the worst thing of which
party could be guilty. Now, the
Democrats who most strongly OPP
posed the amendment did so on the
plea that power to deal with such
corporations belongs to the States,
and should not be given to the
general Government. The ancient
theory of State rights was deliberate
ly used as a pretext for refusing to
the Uuion the power needed, and
then the very same party proceeded
to vote for a bill attempting to ex
ercise such power without a constltu-
tional grant.
No end of pettifogging is possible
about the particular provisions of the
bill and the amendment. But this
is one of the cases in which hair split
ting distinctions betray insincerity.
The people can intrust to their
general Government all the power
they please to protect them from
abuse by corporations which the
States may create. The amendmen
proposed to trust that power fully to
the Union, because injury sustained
by the people in one State through
the gain of corporation created in
another State could not by those
people be stopped or redressed
through the State government which
represents their will. In the govern
ment of that other State by which
the offending corporation was created
the suffering people would have no
power, The only sufficient and prac-
teal remedy is to enable the people
of all the States to defend their rights
and interests through the Congress
which represents all.
1t is equally important that le-
Ultimate and wholesome industrial
development shall be protected
against ignorance or malevolent &C
ton in different States. There might
be as many acts of restriction as there
are States, and forty-five distinct
decisions of the courts would be re-
quired to determine how far these
various laws had exceeded their con-
stitutional authority. But single
act by Congress would require only a
single decision by the United States
court to clear it aside if unconstitu-
tional, or to limit its operations to
the features not held unsound. If
the object is to expose industrial de-
velopement as far as possible to yex-
alton and matchmaking by State Off
Gals, then the sure road is to leave