Arizona republican., 1907-06-01

tariff. although he tells of oCe of the beneficiaries of the tariff who turned his property into a trust at figure so much above its value as to stagger
 receives from him only words of praise
 has a protection of something like twice the per cens paid to employees as wages. or more than forty per cent.
 while the employees received only twenty one per cent of the gro ss sales.
 Referring to the credit given by MT. Beveridge to President Roosevelt for
 prosecuting a number of trusts MT. Bryan says: 'I am glad to commend him where he has enforced the law. but it is not sufficient to enforce the law against few trusts other crim- inal laws are enforced against all of lenders who can be found. Why should we draw a distinction between the horse thief who draws a distinc- ton between the law against horse stealing and the trust magnate who violates the law against the trust?''
 Would Mir. Bryan dissolve the United States Steel corporatIon?" asks Senator Beverfdge. If so. how? e How far would he carry the dissolution? Having dissolv- ed the steel corporation what would become of it's present shareholders? If he would make them stockholders in the smaller corporations resulting from his dissolution how much stock would he give to each? Since he would dis solve the steel corporation, would he stop there-or would he go on dissolv- ing the corporations of which it was formed? Having dissolved the United States Steel corporation would he go on dissolving the other great corpora tions? If not where will he stop? Will he give us a workable rule by which we can tell what corporations should he dissolved ard what should be pre- served? If he says the rule is mon opOly' how will he define monopoly as matter of tangible law"
 Senator Beveridge says ''we repub- licans' have stopped one of the great evils of trusts. campaign contributions. Mir. Bryan doubts whether the law prohibiting corporations from contri- outing will prevent their officers from contributing in devious ways if they SO desire.
 Tt is necessary says he. that the contributions Of individuals shall be made public where those contributions are made to any considerable amount and il Is also necessary that the pub lication shall be made in advance Of the election In order that the voter may know what influences are at work in the campaign" And MT. Bryan fnff. extent. He would compel all news papers having any considerable inter state circulation prominent 10 display on their papers the names Of their stockholders and mortgages. in order that readers may know what influ ences might be vital in shaping the policies of these papers
 Senator Beveridge reviews the pro- posals advanced earlier in the debate by MT. Bryan that federal laws be enacted to prohibit directors of one corporation becoming directors in an other. to prohibit one corporation from owning stock in another and providing penal clause for the law against | agreements restrictive of competitor between corporations. Quoting MT. l Bryan's statement that the trust Of the future is most likely to be a single l corporation trust Senator Beveridge l declares that the democratic leaders 1 first three trust remedies are already i obsolete because of his own testimony . that the forms of trusts they are de- | signed to check are obsOltete. Never ! theless MT Beveridge discusses these | remedies and raises numerous objec- ! tions to the proposed preventing of one | owning tock in another.
 Referring 10 MT. Bryan's revival of . the plan of national franchise endors- @d by the democratic platform of 1900 !. Senator Beveridge plants a picture of l business chaos According to his view Il administrations would not | agree as to which corporations should | be granted franchises and therefore T nc business thus franchised could be [, certain of stable conditions for more