The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1904-04-29

|
Columbia.
Senator Allen individually reported
resolution in favor of calling the
witness before the senate for con-
tempt, but Senator Gray and Senator
Lindsey, both gold Democrats, pre-
sented a minority report, in which
they opposed taking any action in re.
| gard to the witness,
BANKS THAT HAVE
POLITICAL CLAIMS
II you desire further testimony in
regard to the purpose of corporations
in contribu''"~ you will find it in a
letter sent g.. ar. a. B. Hepburn of
the National City bank of New YORK
to Lyman J. Gage, secretary of the
treasury.
The latter bears the date of June
s, 1897, and is published in House
Document 264 of the first session of
the Fifty-sixth congress.
In closing the letter, after asking
for deposits, Mr.. Hepburn says:
"Of course the bank is very strong
and If you will take the pains Z,
look at out list of directors you will
see that we also have great political
| claims in view of what was done in
the campaign last year"
Here is the president of the most
influential bank in the country call
ing attention to political services ren.
dered by the directors of the bank as
a reason why the bank should be re-
membered in the distribution of gov
eminent money.
Now, with the testimony of the
head of one of the great trusts ano
the testimony of an official of one of
the great banks, can any one doub,
that contributions are made by the
corporations for the purpose of con.
trolling the policy of the party after
the election.
Can anyone doubt that with such
platform as was adopted in New
York and with candidate whose
conscience would permit him to run
upon such platform--does any one
doubt that with such a platform and
candidate the party would be mort.
gagged beforehand to the corporations
that are now using the government
as a private asset and plundering the
people at will?
But there is another reason why the
Democratic party cannot afford to go
befoae the country with an ambigu-
Gus platform and an uncertain candi-
date.
IT is PLUTOCRACY
OR IT is DEMOCRACY
| No matter how people may differ
as to the relative Importance of is
sues, all must recognize that the
trust question today presents an i'm
portant phase of the great conflict
between plutocracy and democracy.
We have recently had a supreme
court decision on the merger case.
This decision was rendered by a bare
majority of one, and that one Judge
Brewer) In separate opinion has
stated his position in such way as to
leave no doubt that in the first case in
volving trust he may join the minor,
ity and defeat the Sherman law.
Judge Brewer construes the anti
trust law to apply only to reasonable
restraint Of trade. He would have the
court decide whether the restraint
is reasonable or unreasonable.
| His decision, taken in connection
with the dissenting opinions of Jus.
tices Fuller, Peckham, White and
Holmes, shows that the appointment
OF new judge might throw the tfecl-
sion to the one side or to the other.
The judges of the supreme court
are appointed by the president, ana
the president to be elected this fall
will doubtless have the appointment
OF one or two, and possibly three,
supreme court judges.
If his sympathies are with the cor
porations he will doubtless appoint
judges satisfactory to the corpora
tions-especially if obligated to the
corporations by large campaign con.
tributions-and these judges can
make it impossible to secure any rem.
edial legislation for years to come.
If, four years hence, the people
should secure president, q senate
and house opposed to private monop-
olies, they may find themselves un.
able to get any remedial legislation
past the supreme court for several
years.
DISSENTING JUDGES
PEOPLES MENACE
The opinion filed by Judge White
and concurred in by the others denies
the power of congress over monopo-
lies organized in a state.
These dissenting judges insist that
congress has no power to regulate or
restrain the creation of a monopoly
within state.
1t will be remembered that the deci
sion in the Knight case, known as the
sugar trust case, turned upon that
very question. 1t was admitted in
that. case that the sugar trust con-
trolled the production of sugar, but
the court held that the Sherman law