The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-08-16
VIEWS ON TIMELY TOPICS
BY TIMES=DISPATCh READERS

planned on Tuesday. Mr.. Editor, 1t was
crowded out. However,, as you answered
1t last Sunday as though It were ae-
to the points you made against It:
do az away az With !, state control Of CORPORA
mission created by the Federal Congress, !,
Not at nll. i would do no such thing l
would give the National Commission pow
or to forbid q State corporation to com,
fairly my commission would have moth;
Ing whatever to do with Its affairs, and
the State commission would exercise
exactly the same control over I,, It th ina !
esta blished You say, second. then ne
would have the most autocrattc body
ever dreamed OF in the American repub-
lie, body that would have It, absolutely
business interests OF the United States
and to destroy them at Will" But do
not see how authority to fine CORPORA co oonl-
pete in business. when It was really
seeaIng to destroy a rival, by pretended
competition only, would b. authority to
ana destroy it at viii; So long as It
traded fairly my commission could take
no control oft OF any sort whatever and
as for my commission being autocratic,
an appeal from any OF its acts to the
Circuit Court OF Appeals or to the SUI
preme Court OF the United States? II 1t
attempted autocratic action OF any sort
1t could be corrected at once.
The Interstate Commerce Commission
is far more autocratic than would have
my commission to be, but has not its
entire action in the twenty years Of
Has FL 1T it once acted in an autoeratic man
ncr? And II 1t should do so the, Supreme
Court sits over t to correct T.. and It
ona p5op ~ Do So q The The saes SaSe
been given very despotic powers, and, In
some Instances. they have used them
very despot!cally. But IN every such IN;
action within tho bounds OF reason,
You say, third, What sort OF liberty
would there be IN the business world I
Its goods under certain price
But propose no such thi rga II propose opose
nde g!ft, deny Its right to pretend to
give away. It's goods when the real
p stroy rival, deny its rIsht to follow
In the tracks OF a rival with q
girt OF goods for the purpose of destroy
ng that rival and With TIE INT inte nHs Of Of
as soon as the RIVAL Is destroyed and
to charge the public whatever is neces-
Sary to reCoup what has been given away.
SO ! do not propose that my commission
shall have power. to say to-, business
concern that 1t shall not sell Its goods
under certain price. It may sell lis
goods as cheap rs It peases, so long IS
It is really selling goods and not, In
fact, giving them away to destroy n
rival,
all right to apply this to the trusts, how
should we determine which corporations
were trusts and which were not? And IL
tuh the rule IL applied to one corporation, Why
not to all? and u It applied TO- corpora
tions, why not to indlviduals2'
would make no discrimination be-
tween corporations, but would apply
one law to all corporations that pre-
tended to be engaged In competition, but
were really enga ged In murder or man
prineiple should i not Be applied to In
divduals. though Individual trafilc can
never assume proportions which will
| make It important to deal with them,
You say, fifth, III a citizen could go
before this high and. mighty commission
| and prevent trust from underselling
him, could not the trust go before the
undertaking it?''
Undoubtedly, but you really must rid
vow, mind Of the idea, that, ] propose to
| nrevent any one undertaking another,
| So long as he Is really Offering his goods