The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-08-31

they have to do now is to dissolve their
 separate corporations and turn their property over to q new corporation
 The new corporation can proceed to do
 the same thing that the separate cor
 porations attempted and yet not violate
 the law. We need therefore new iegis- lation and the republican party not only falls to enact such legislation
 but fails Feven to promise 1t. The demo- cratic party must be prepared to pro- pose new and eficient legislation. Recent Investigations have brought to light that nearly all crookedness revealed in the management or our large corporations has been due to the l duplication of directorates. A group or men obtained control Of several cor | porations doing business with each other and then proceeded to swindle the stockholders Of the various cor porations for which they acted. | No man can serve two masters and the director who attempts to do so will fail no matter how much money he makes before his failure is discover | ed. Many of the trusts control prices | by the same methods. The same group ! Of men secure control of several com peting corporations and the manage ment is thus consolidated. It is worth while to consider whether blow may | be struck at the trusts by a law I making it Illegal for the same person I to act as director or officer or two | corporations which deal with each other or are engaged in the same gem eral business.
 A still more far reaching remedy was proposed by the democratic plat for of 1900. namely, the requiring Of corporations to take out federal
 license before engaging in interstate commerce.
 This remedy is simple. easily ap-
 piled and comprehensive. The taking of license would not embarrass legitimate corporations - it would scarcely inconvenience them--whfle ft
 would confine the predatory corpora tions to the state of their origin. Just
 as license to sell liquor leaves the possessor of license to sell only in ac- cordance with the laws of the state in l which he resides, so the corporation license granted by federal commits sion would not interfere with the right of each state to regulate foreign corr porations doing business within It's borders. If corporations were required to take a federal license the feneral government could then issue tire l license upon terms and conditions which would protect the public. A corporation differs from human being in that 1t has no natural rights and, as all of its righhts are derived | from the statutes, it can be limited or l restrained according as the public well fare may require.
 The control which congress has over interstate commerce is complete and l if congress can prevent the transporta- l tfon of lottery ticket through the malls, by the express companies of by freight, 1t can certainly forbid the use of the malls, the railways and telegraphs to any corporation which is endeavoring to monopoIize an article of commerce and no party can long be credited with sincerity if 1t con- demns the trusts with words only and then permits the trusts to employ all he fnstrumentalfties of interstate commerce in the carrying out of its
 nefarious plans.
 It is far easier to prevent a monopo- ly than to watch 1t and punish It and
 this prevention can be accomplished
 in practical way by refusing license to any corporation whichc controls
 more than a certain proportion of the total product-this proportion to be arbitrarily fixed at point which will
 give the free operation to competi- tion.
 The tariff question is very closely
 allied to the trust question and the
 easy means of limiting the extortion
 which the trusts can practice.
 Free Trade a Remedy.
 While absolute free trade would not necessarily make a trust impossible,
 still it IS probable that very few man.
 ufacturing establishments would dare
 to enter into the trust if the President were empowered to put on the free
 list articles competing with those con- trolled by a trust. While l shall take
 occasion at an early date to consider
 cannot permit this opportunity to pass
 without expressing the opinion that the principle embodied in the protcc-
 tive tariff has been the fruitful source as well as the support ofamany of our
 most iniquitous trusts. It is difficult
 to condemn the manufacturers for uni-
 ting to take advantage of a high tar
 if schedule when the schedule is
 framed on the theory that industries
 need all the protection given and 1t
 is not likely that the beneficiaries of
 these schedules will consent to their
 reduction so long as the public waits
 for the tariff to be reformed by its friends.
 But one of the worst features of tar if levied not for revenge, but for the avowed purpose of protection, Is that
 1t fosters the idea that men should use
 their votes to advance their own finan-
 ella interests. The, manufacturer has
 been assured that it Is legitimate for
 him to vote for Congressmen when
 maybe, they will 1egislate larger divi-
 dends into his pockets; sheep growers
 have been encouraged to believe that
 they should have no higher aim in voting than to raise the price of wool and laboring men have been urged to make their wages their only concern. For u generation the fiat" has been
 fried out of the manufacturers by the Republican campaign and then the
 manufacturers have been reimbursed
 by legislation. with the public con- science has been educated to believe
 that this onen purchase of Legislation was entirely proper. No wonder the insurance companies have used the
 money of their policy1olders to carry
 elections-no wonder that trusts have hastened to purchase immunity from
 punishment with liberal donations.
 How can we draw a moral distinction
 between the man who sells his vote for five dollars on election day and
 the manufacturer who sells his politi-
 cal infiuencme for fifty or one hundred thousand dollars, payable in dividends?
 How can we draw moral line be-
 elected by the trusts to prevent hos tile legislation and the Senator or Congressman kept in Congress by the
 manufacturers to secure friendly leg islation?
 The party which justifies the one
 form of bribery cannot be relied upon
 to condemn the other; There never
 be more easily entered upon, for the manufacturers by selling abroad cheaper than at home, as many of
 them do. have not only shown their
 ingratitude toward those who built
 the tariff wall for thom but they have connection with the world. The high tariff has long been burden to the consumers in the United States and
 1t is growing more and more lne- mace to our foreign commerce because
 1t arouses resentment and provokes retaliation.
 Tho raIiroad question is also inter-