The new era. (Walden, Colo.) 1906-19??, 1907-09-05

other method is, a great combination
of capital will go into one corner of a
states and find q small competitor
there, and they will put down the price
Of the product far below what we can
manufacture 1t at and keep it down
until they have driven him out of the
business, although in other parts of
the country they get much higher
price for the article. That is an in
stance of unlawful monopoly and un-
lawful trust. There have been more
prosecutions of trusts under Theodore
Roosevelt than under all the other ad-
ministrations before him put together.
His administration has been extremely
successful in suppressing that kind of
trust.
81 believe in the suppression of
great many corporations which agree
certain price.
"Mr. Bryan inquiries why some of the
trusts have not been imprisoned
THE Standard Oil and the sugar
trust have been prosecuted for taking
rebates under the Elkins law. Under
that law no imprisonments have been
made; they are only fined-that Is the
result of the $29,O00,000 fine imposed
by Judge Lands in Chicago the other
day. Now, as large as that fine is,
If 1t had been forty or fifty days for
the local manager Of that Standard OIL
Company, or the president, it would
have been much more effective, and
the execution Of that judgment would
have been much easier.
Jurors Are Sensitive.
"There is difficulty in securing con-
viction of the men engaged in this
trust business by jury in the early
enforcement of the law, because you
find jurors are rather sensitive about
sending men to Jail who are otherwise
respectable. We had an instance OF
that in New York. We prosecuted the
tobacco trust for monopolizing the lie
orice business. The president of the
two companies came to the district at
torney and said, We will plead guilty
If you will agree on fine That mat
ter was brought to the attention Of
the Cabinet to know what steps to
take. The Cabinet said: Send them to
Jail for the sake of example, Well,
they went right ahead, and the jury,
as they had the right to do under the
antitrust laws, found the corporation
guilty, and these two presidents, who
admitted on the stand that they had
done the very acts upon which the
conviction of the company was based,
stultified themselves and were &C
quilted.
Now that is what we have.to en-
counter in prosecution. 1t won't last
always. Ultimately, IL this thing is
continued, some shining mark will be
hit, and when they are hit the effect
will be substantially for good. | do
not want to be thought to be bloody,
but do think that the enforcement OF
the law and the imposition Of severe
penalty in two or three instances will
effect wonders.
Now, Mr.. Bryan wants to know
what we are going to do with the
trusts? Well, | say l am in favor OF
prosecuting them, or when they merit
that prosecution, an action for injunc-
ton is the policy we can follow against
every company or every trust against
which we can get any evidence.
Power of Government.
81 believe in the power of the Amer
lean government to enforce its law;
against combinations of capital or COM
binations of anyone else, and that is
the method / would pursue. Mr. Bryan
says that he is in favor of eXtirpation
of trusts, root and branch. l am in
favor of making it possible to combine
capital for the usefulness of the pub
lie, and l am in favor of suppressing
unlawful combinations and furnishing
those who are guilty.
Policy of Roosevelt.
1.-The policy of Mr.. Roosevelt and the
path that he is to follow is as clear as
the MONDAY to him. 1t is, that he
must take these steps which will bring
to justice the man whose guilt he has
evidence OF, and it does not make any
difference who it hurts. What he is
engaged in doing is prosecuting men
in respect to evidence that is fresh,
to bring them to justice and If that
creates a panic in Wall Street then
we will have to stand it.
Nov, have heard the criticism that
he has out-Bryaned Bryan. While l
do not quite know what that means
unless it means that both he and Mr..
Bryan have seen and recognized GER
tain evils which have grown out of
our present prosperity and both are in
favor of suppressing them. Yet any
one who has intimately studi~ the
government under Mr.. RooseS and
the government which would be, but |
think never will be, under Mr.. Bryan,
cannot fail to note the difference.
No Law for Rich or Poor Alone.
"You cannot make law that will be
effective against the rich and non-ef-
fective against the poor. 1t is not
within your power to do so. They have
attempted to do it In Oklahoma in their
new constitution. They have got a
provision by which a jury is required
to pass on question of whether the
courts order of injunction has been
violated.