The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-12-18

1nSureS opposition from the trusts, but
how can party be judged better than
by the company it keeps? Trust mag
mates will not be friendly to a party
that is unfriendly TO them, and the
fact that they support party raises a
presumption against that party. If
they give literally TO the campaign
fund of party, it cannot be for any
uther purpose than to reward the par
ty for what it has done for them or to
purchase some advantage in the flu
ture. A trust magnate may contribute
from his own purse to advance the
general principles of his party, but
when he contributes from trust funds
II must be on the theory that the trust
itself is to be benefited, for how other
wise could he defend the donation of
funds that belong not to him but to
the stockholders? If the great cor
porations help a party into power, the
party cannot repay the corporations
except at the expense of the public.
Aside from the economic injustice
that the trusts are doing, they are
guilty of another immortality in that
they are corrupting politics and de-
bauching not only the voters who are
bought, but the representatives who
are led to betray their constituents.
The Democratic party should attack
the principle of private monopoly
whenever ana Wherever dppIleQ. II
cannot hope to succeed merely by at
lacking some one trust; it must at
tack them all.
jefferson the Foe of Monopoly.
'Legislate as little as possible, and
leave the rest to the energies of free
people''--thus spake jefferson, and this
language is often quoted by those who
oppose legislation intended to destroy
the trusts. Such an application of his
language, however, does great inJuS-
tice To Jefferson. He was the foe of
monopoly. So great was his opposition
to the principle of monopoly that he
even questioned whether the govern
tnent ought to grant patent; and
While he made this exception, he de-
fined the grounds upon which the ex-
ception stands, and insisted that even
this exception should be care
fully guarded. No one who under
stands Jefferson's hostility to all kinds
of special privilege would be guilty
of so using anything he ever said as an
argument against any needed reme-
dial legislation. If by legislation cor
porations are permitted to become so
large as to endanger the public wei
fare, it will not do to plead in their
behalf the restriction of legislative
power.~ Jefferson was opposed to what
is called paternalism in government:
he did not believe that the people
should be taught TO depend upon the
government, but he never questioned
the right or the duty of Congress to
employ its delegated powers to the
fullest extent when necessary for the
protection of human rights and the
public welfare. In his first inaugural
message message which has been
the standing Democratic platform ever
since-Jefferson demanded the pres
ervation of the general government in
its whole constitutional Vigor, as the
sheet-anchor of our peace at nome
and safety abroad The whole con-
stitutional vigor" of the general gov
ernment is needed just now to cope
with the trust question. In the dis
cusSion of the principles OF JEFFERSON
it must be remembered that We nave
q very different situation to meet to-
day from that which confronted JEFF |
ferson, and we must look to the DEM |
ocratic spirit of his teachings, not !
merely to the letter. to learn what |
jefferson would do today Laws that |
were sufficient for the regulation OF |
travel by stage are not sufficient for |
the regulation of travel by rail; bat
the same spirit that would prompt /
legislation to protect passengers today, |
just as the spirit that would prohibit |
the beating of a man with club /
would, after the introduction of fire |
arms, prohibit the injury of man |
with powder and ball. If the defend |
ers of the trusts are 50 anxious TO
obey the injunction of Jefferson. let
them begin by refusing to grant TO
corporations charters that permit the
exploitation of the public. 1t is alb |
surd to invoke JcfferSonS advice |
agaihts restraining legislation after |
having disregarded it in the creation
of corporations
The Position OF Parties as to MonOpO-
lies.
The Republican party by its defense
OF the principle of private monopoly Is
Fastening the consideration of the IS
sue presented by Social SIN. The DEM
ocrats declare that all private monop-
olies are bad, and favor such legisla-
ton as will restore the reign of COM
petition. When Republicans assert i
as some do, that a private monopoly
is the natural outgrowth of our eco
nomic development when they declare
that m0nopolieS are benificent ana
helpful, they go more than halfway
toward Socialism. The Socialist car
ries the argument a little farther and
insists that the advantages of monop-
oily should accrue to the public ana
not to a few men. Republicans nave
been in the habit of denounclng the
Democrats as Socialists, and yet the
Republicans themselves have done
sition than the Democrats have. 1t is
the failure of the party in power to !
protect the public from the great con-
solicitations of money that has given
an impetus to Socialistic doctrines.
The Democrats draw the line between
what arc called natural monopolies
and ordinary industries. city water
plant for instance. is natural mo-
nopoly because it is impossible to
have a number Of competing water
systems The same is true of light
ing plants and other municipal en-
terprises. Competition is practically
Impossible in such cases, and she Dem /
ocrats. as a rule-and the rule is be
coming more and more nearly uniyer-
sal-favor municipal ownership and
operation of these plants. The DEM
ocrats favor municipal ownership. not
because the principle of competition
is bad. but because competition IN the
case of municipal plants is Impossible.
The Republicans on the contrary. are
now insisting that competition among
great Industries is a harmful thing and
that these industries are justified IN
combining TO suspend competition. al
though it is well known that the cor
porations and not the public reap the