The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1900-04-17
tBy Thomas G. shearman.)

effectively demonstrated in detail, by
previous articles in this series, that no
better statement of them could now be
made The evil is universally acknow-
ledged by members of all parties, Re-
publicans as much as Democrats or
Populists. The real and only question
is the ancient one: what are you go
ing to do about it?"
MORE RESTRICTIONS WILL NOT
KILL TRUSTS.
The very foundation principle of these
trust combinations is restriction. Proba-
bly, on the theory that fire must al
ways be fought with fire, every effort
thus far made by legislatures, to destroy
the power of so-Called trusts, has been
in the form of still further restrictions.
One restriction is piled upon another,
and still third upon both; and in this
way IL Is somehow hoped that liberty
will be established by multiplying re-
straints upon liberty. The commerce
and trade of the country are tied up
with chains by the trust monopolies,
and then congress and the legislatures
seek to nullify the effect of these chains
by claiming the chains. 1t is seriously
proposed to restore free competition by
prohibiting trust combinations from
entering into competition. Laws have
been passed for the avowed purpose of
preventing combinations which control
two-thirds of the production of any ar
ricle from selling their goods in compe
tition with the producers of the remain
ing third. 1t is no cause for wonder that
all the so-called antitrust laws have
resulted in ignominious failure, and that
the number of trust combinations never
increased so rapidly as sirce these laws
were enacted.
There is but one remedy for slavery;
and that is liberty. There is but one
remedy for monopoly; and that is to set
free those currents which have been
restrained by monopoly. No combination
can ever be permanently successful un-
less it is founded upon some monopoly
of natural resources. In very rare cases
such q monopoly is founded upon the
extraordinary genius of one or two men.
For this there is, and ought to be, no
remedy. Nature makes it impossible
that such a monopoly of genius should
last more than few years; and during
that period its benefits will far outweigh
all its disadvantages. Genius may have
an occasional monopoly; but no one
could long have a monopoly in genius.
Nature is sure to produce a rival genius,
who does in another way what the first
genius did in his own peculiar way.
This was strikingly illustrated in the
history of the steel manufacture. Bes-
semer having invented one immensely
valuable and cheap process for making
steel, Siemens followed with another
method, and Gilchrist and Thomas with
still another.
The great monopolies of this country
owe their existence 10 special unjust
privileges, conferred upon them by q
course of legislation which the people of
the United States adopted of their own
free will, and which are still main
tained by the votes of the very people
who most loudly declaim against mono-
poles. Foremost among these are the
tariff laws, the internal revenue laws,
and the patent laws. We shall briefly
consider these in the order of the least
important.
PATENT LAW MONOPOLIES.
Taking first the patent laws, which
ayowedly concede q monopoly for the
term Of seventeen years, for good and
solid reasons in each case. we have only
TO say that they afford a striking IL
on any legalized monopoly, however
meritorious. This is shown by a COM
paratlvely recent scandal, with regard
TO pretended conflict of claims in the
patent office. Two opposing claims were
secretly purchased by one corporation,
which afterwards employed attorneys
on both sides to keep up the sham con-
test for many years, resulting in prac-
tical monopoly of single invention for
thirty years, instead of seventeen. BY
similar manipulations, other valuable
Inventions are monopoliZed for a much
longer time than the law intends; while
many others are simply locked up and
kept out of public use entirely. The
patent laws need a thorough revision;
all in the direction of greater liberty.
AS We do not propose to discuss de-
tails on this occasion, we confine our
selves TO saying that these laws should
be so amended as to make 1t impossi-
BILE for any monopoly to last under 1t
Tor more than seventeen years from the
date of the application for patent, and
so as to permit the use by everybody
of all patented inventions upon reason
able terms: or in some other way pa
tents should be prevented from support
ing and monopoly for longer period
than the precise term prescribed upon
the face of the statute.
INTERNAL REVENUE LAW MONO
POLES.
The internal revenue laws, by the re-
strictions with which they surround the
manufacture of liquors and tobacco, af-
ford some great advantages to monopo-
lies. AS II is our object in this article
not to specify any particular monopoly
now existing, we prefer to illustrate the
point by reference to the match manu-
facturer, in the days when there was an
internal revenue tax of one cent box.
1t Is well known that the result of that
tax was to destroy Immediately all in
dependent manufacturers, and to con-
eentrate the business In the hands of
two or three great corporations. When
that tax was repealed in 1883. these
monopolies fell OF their own weight;
and 1t was many years before they could
Ne reconstructed. The present great