Omaha daily bee., 1906-09-16


naI Provisions Of the Sherman antitrust 4
law While the effect of a criminal con- |
ways wholesome, It is veil FOR us who an |
s,iyse the practicability OF proposed renle- |
o,es to remember that the civil provisions /
ana enforced by a mere preponderance ~ /
evidence, while no punishment for crime |
constituting the crime are proven beyond a |
peeeonable doubt ne found and returned in l
t5e verdict Of Jury. The difhculty in en- |
much in applying it's provisions after a |
case has been proven az In obtaining evil !
He then boldly states states that the enforce
ment OF existing laws n not SUFFICIENT and |
aaas, The democratic party must be pro- |
ton, and proceeds to suggest what he's |
been often suggested before:
Regulation of Directors.
II is worth while" he says. ito con-
slider whether a blow may not be struck at |
trusts by law making Il illegal for ths |
same person to act as director and officer |
of two corporations which deal with each !
business"
suppose he means to say that II should
Of Alabama, or Of the matchIess marble
! deposits OF Colorado, or of the coal meas
and for their development should build a
railroad, having promoted both enterprises,
ana having invested money in each, 1
should not be permitted to be a director
common carrier TO the particular line of
ia sns ss toF G which was primarily organ;
the last session Of congress, and quite an
other thing to restrict what some under
stand to be the natural right OF the in
| dividual to invest his money wherever he
pie9ses. provided only he does not interfere
with or restrict the rights and PRIVILEGES
yestment, to stand guard over 1t. Andrew
CSrnegie is quoted as advising one to put
All his eggs In one basket, and then watch
| that basket. Colonel RFVan ia the first
go far as l know. TO advocate a law for
SnS issn one to put eggs In two baskets
Thomas Jefferson, on whose teachings
democrats once claimed their party to have
ton Of Independence the proposition that
| the pursuit of happiness lie an lnalenable
right. Not until happiness is pursued in
way which interferes with the rights and
| happiness of another should such pursuit
/ be restrained Notwithstanding Mr..
Bryan's statement made In the same con-
! nection that most corporations are conduct
! ing their affairs in a legitimate manner he
would legislate against the many in the
part OF q few. Il he had ID one kicking colt
1 ! suppose he would hamstring his whole
drove.
! Pardon the suggestion that the eloquent
traveller. having been for some years largely
| occupied In the discharge of other than
executive, administrative. judicial, or even
1 carefully 20 study and analyze existing
laws. II person becomes a director in
/
intent to monopollze product and control
the price thereof to the prejudice of others
yosfes both 5ne the sn oiv, in and tbe Criminal
| provisions of the existing Sherman anti
! trust law. Prohibiting a man from doing an
| to me to be an unnecessarily drastic method
! OF preventing an Objectionable thing already
prohibited by existing statutes and easily
| enforced when the essential facts can be
proved
License for Corporations.
Mr.. Bryan then reverts to the democratic
| platform OF 1900, and announces "as a still
to lake oS FEDERAL
before enga cling In interstate commerce;
and adds that this remedy is simple and
ut is far easier to prevent a monopoly
than to watch II and punish II; and this
teal way by refusing a license to any
corporation which controls more than
certain proportion Of the total ,,l. product;
a point which will give free operation to
asserts is simple and easily applied" and
one that will accomplish the prevention
OF monopoly" He spurns the thought q
controlling. curbing or restraining the evil,
but proposes by a single enactment abso-
lutely to exterminste the last suggestion
WIN HE panacea stand analysisf Let us
Some years ago my attention was called
the Salt trust. Whether was rightly in
formed or not Affects in no degree the
lustration. I was told that a corporation
OF large capitalization had contracted for
Michigar. and Of ali the ' salt works works OF
New York, and OF all the salt works of
/ assume that IL a corporation thus own
ing or controlling an entire product should
make application for federal license
be promptly denied II refused a license,
OF course, II could not engage In Interstate
commerce. and could not thereafter ship
nessee would still need salt What would
you do? What could you do? Let me
else could be induced to buy a carload or
so deliverable Mt one Of the warehouses
OF the trust situated IEs at some one , Of the
salt to Tennessee. for no Individual can
be Disseminated against simply because he
that the people OF Tennessee would get
the same salt with this difference. slight
Dn. Te De- danger Ot an %ond Be
Jones. being the only man with carload
OF salt in the state, might turn. predatory
usually large profit. This danger would he
increased II he should secure an exclusive
contract from the trust Let us hope for
Possibility of Monopoly.
Two or three years ago ] started at 5
o'clock one morning from Deadwood 8, D.,
went thirty miles by train ana walked
eight TO see tin mine. II was said to be
the only workable deposit OF tin ever dis
covered in the United States. IL this is
true, then one corporation controls the en-
tire output of tin IN the United States, and
would OF course be denied r federal license
and could not under Mr.. Bryan's sure
cure-iaw, engage in interstate commerce.
Equally embarrassed would be every other
new industry, whether II be the production
Of newly discovered metal like tin nickel
or the growth of some new fruit or cereal.
or the manufacture of some newly patented
device. "a license should be refused.
says Mr. Bryan. ito any corporation which
controls more than a certain proportion OF
| quite certain to control for a time the en-
| tire product of every new industry,
Colonel Bryans panacea may sound well
! In democratic platform. but at frst blush
| Il does not appear quite SO inviting as d
| par OF the statute law OF the land
Before the remedy afforded by a federal
| license can be applied either by refusal TO
| grant or by cancellation after Il has been
| granted, Il manifestly will be found neces-
| sary to establish the fact by competent
| evidence that the concern actually controls
| or is seeking to control such portion OF a
| commodity whatever II may be- will
| permit II at least 10 influence II not dictate
| the price. Under our Jurisprudence no law
| can be passed that does not require the es-
| Establishment of certain facts as prereduis-
lite TO its enforcement. The Sherman anti
trust law has seldom II ever. been made
| uvha there has hppn evidence