Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1905-05-08
AMONOP0lYDEFINED
BY WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN IN
PUBLIC OPINION.
That Legal Definition Could be Con-
StitutiOnaIIy Made is Beyond Doubt.
Congress- Has as Much Control
Over Harmful! Corporations as
Over Lotteries, or Other Frauds
Upon the Public.

Upon the pubic.
If it is objected that it might he diff
cult to determine what constitutes
monopoly, 1T is sufficient to say that the
law can, if necessary, fix the proportion
of the total product which any corpora
ton can produce OF control. For in
stance, the law might fix the proportion
at IS per cent, OF " per cent, or 20 per
cent, or at any other per cent, and say
that the control OF more than the stated
per cent would prevent the granting OF
license or forfeit license already grant
ed. Would such a law be unconstltu-
tional? When this plan was first pro-
posed at the Chicago antitrust confer
ence in 1899 the question OF its constl'
tutionality was raised. There is no rea-
son to doubt the constitutionality OF such
a law. Corporations are creatures OF
law and congress has power to control
corporations engaged in interstate COM
merce. Ii congress can prohibit the car
rying OF lottery ticket either by mail or
express, when both the vendor and the
vendee want the ticket transported, it
can certainly prevent the use OF the
mails, the telegraph lines, and the rail-
roads for the transportation OF the mer-
chaudise OF "A corporation when the pur-
pose of that corporation is to destroy
competition and harm the public. A
private monopoly has always been an
outlaw, and it requires a stretch OF the
imagination to suppose that the supreme
court would SO construe the constitution
as to protect corporation in the doing
OF thing regarded through all history
as unlawful.
In dealing with the question OF monop-
oily two distinctions ought to be drawn.
First, fictitious person created by law
ought to be distinguished from the
natural person OF flesh and blood. The
natural man living in any state IN the
Union is, and should be, allowed to trade
freely with natural men in other states,
and no state would be justified in dis
eliminating in favor Of its own ctizens
as against the citizens Of any other state.
But this right OF citizens TO trade freely
throughout the United States rests upon
a reason, and that reason is that people
are much the same. Men do not differ
much in height, in strength, or in theil
needs. The tallest man is not much
taller than the shortest, and the strong.
est man not many times stronger than
the weakest. In mental ability mer
differ more, and yet the average man in
one state is approximately the equal ol
the average man in other states. Not sc
with the corporation. The states differ
in their incorporation laws, and we find
one state permitting what other states
deny. A corporation may be thousand
or ten thousand times as great as the
average individual, and it is not reason,
able or just that the corporate giant
should be permitted to enjoy oil of the
privileges granted to the natural man.
The natural man has inalienable rights
rights which the government can not
take away-the corporation has no rights
which the government did not give and
no rights which the government can moi
take away when the welfare OF society
requires it.
Second, a distinction ought to be drawn
between the rights OF the stockholdel
and the rights of the consumer. There
There is a tendency to regard every
stockholder as an innocent purchaser
although no stakeholder in trust ought
to be regarded as an innocent purchaser
for he is under no compulsion to buy
stock and can always investigate before
he buys. Ii man buys stock in a trus
he becomes party to all that the trus
does. He can not shield himself behine
the fact that he is a minority stockholdel
and can not control the company. He
knows that when he buys minority in
terest in the company, and he ought no
to be permitted to avoid responsibility
after accepting the benefits. The con
sumer is driven by his God-given needs
to purchase the necessaries OF life, ant
he is deserving OF more consideration
than the stockholder OF a private mon
opoly.
If the license plan, before suggested
were in operation today, it would bt
possible to destroy every monopoly which
how preys upon the public, and to pre-
vent the formation of new ones. Take
the Standard Oil company. for instance
it could not do business outside OF tht
state of its origin without securing 6
license. To secure the license it woult
have to make application to certain off