Waterbury evening Democrat., 1905-12-05

lnuuStrldl conditions under which the individuals, and especially the great corporation ;, doing an interstate busi- ness are to act. The makers of our national constitution provided especial ly that the regulation of interstate com merce should come within the sphere of the general government. The argu- ments in favor of their taking this stand were even then overwhelming, but they are far stronger today, in view of the enormous development of great business agencies, usually corporate in form. Experience has shown conclu- sively that it is useless to try to get any adequate regulation and super vision of these great corporations by state action. Such regulation and su- pervision can only be effectively exer- cised by sovereign whose jurisdiction is coextensive with the field of work of the corporations-that is, by the nation al government. I believe that this reg ulation and supervision can be obtain ed by the enactment of law by the con- gress. If this proves impossible. it will certainly be necessary ultimately to confer in fullest form such power upon the national government by a proper amendment of the constitution. It would obviously be unwise to endeavor to secure such an amendment until it is certain that the result cannot be ob- tained under the constitution as it now is. The laws of the congress and of the several states hitherto, as passed upon by the courts, have resulted more often in showing that the states have no power in the matter than that the national government has power; so that there at present exists a very un- fortunate condition of things, under which these great corporations doing an interstate business occupy the pc sition of subjects without sovereign, neither any state government nor the national government having effective control over them. Our steady aim should be by legislation, cautiously and carefully undertaken, but resolutely persevered in, to assert the sovereignty of the national government by afflrma- tive action.
 This is only in form an innovation. In substance it is merely a restoration, for from the earliest time such regula- ton of industrial activities has been recognized in the action of the law, making bodies, and all that I propose is to meet the changed conditions in such manner as will prevent the com monwealth abdicating the power it has always possessed, not only in this coun- try, but also in England before and since this country became separate nation.
 It has been a misfortune that the na tional laws on this subject have hither- to been of a negative or prohibitive rather than an affirmative kind, and still more that they have in part sought to prohibit what could not be effective ly prohibited and have in part in their prohibitions confounded what should be allowed and what should not be al lowed. It is generally useless to try to prohibit all restraint on competition, whether this restraint be reasonable or unreasonable, and where it is not use less it is generally hurtful. Events have shown that it Is not possible ade- quately to secure the enforcement of any law of this kind by incessant ap- peal to the courts. The department of justice has for the last four years de- voted more attention to the enforce ment of the antitrust legislation than to anything else Much has been ac- complished: particularly marked has been the moral effect of the prosecu- tions. but it is increasingly evident that there will be a very insufficient bene- ficial result in the way of economic change. The successful prosecution of one device to evade the law immediate ly develops another device to accom- plish the same purpose. What is need ed is not sweeping prohibition of every arrangement. good or bad. which may tend to restrict competition, but such adequate supervision and regulation as will prevent any restriction of com petition from being to the detriment of the public. as well as such supervision and regulation as will prevent other abuses in no way connected with re- striction of competition. Of these abuses perhaps the chief. although by no means the only one. is overcapltal- ization. generally itself the result of dishonest promotion. because of the myriad evils it brings in it's train. for such oyercapitalization often means an imitation that invites business panic. IL always conceals the true relation of the profit earned to the capital actually invested, and it creates a burden of in terest payments which is fertile cause of improper reduction in or limitation of wages. IL damages the small in vestor. discOurages thrift and encour- ages gambling and speculation. while and dishonesty which 1t implies. for harm to morals is worse than any pos sible harm to material interests. and the debauchery of politics and business by great dishonest corporations Is far worse than any actual material evil they do the public. Until the national government obtains in some manner which the wisdom of the congress may suggest proper control over the big corporations engaged in interstate con- merce-that is. over the great majority of the big corporations will be i'm possible to deal adequately with these evils.
 am well aware of the difficulties of the legislation that ! am suggesting and of the need of temperate and eau finna aeffnn fn sa-.-rsnr it [ shnrrIh