The Colorado statesman., 1907-08-31

which were given before this could not
be punished under the rate bill. But
the fact is, that the Elkins bill was un-
worthy in one respect. The Elkins bill
took away the imprisonment penalty,
and that is the reason why it passed
SO smoothly, without the opposition of
the railroads.
Il am not fierce. am not bloody,
and l do not want to criticise the rail-
road people. i submit to you a fair,
honest question for the suppressing of
the violation of law, whether just six
months Imprisonment of any promi-
nent trust man, who is engaged in re-
ceiving rebates, won't have more effect
IN settling this rebate question, then
fine?
Must Live Up to Franchises.
81 am not opposed to the railway
companies. They have displayed bril-
liancy of management in many ways,
but they have received from the public
franchises, and the first principle of
that franchise was that they should
furnish equal facilities to all. 1t is
generally admitted that they do not.
Now perhaps that avenue in which
the greatest abuse has been proven
to the public has been proven in re-
spect to the management of the great
interstate railways of the country.
THE Standard Oil company said,
We can increase your receipts $780,,
900 month, and if you do not give us
q rebate we will go to your competitor
The railroad company in sense was
bulldozed into it. Now l remark that
by way of explanation and not by way
of an excuse.
They have got to understand the
law must be enforced; the law is for
the rich as well as the poor, for the
powerful as well as the lowly.
1--WE have heard great deal about
overcapitalization. That means the
issue of stocks and bonds on the credit
of company at price below par, and
loading a company up with debt and
liability which it ought not to bear
Those who are in on the ground floor
get the stock and bonds cheap and sell
them to the public at a much higher
price. So far as the injury done to
persons who buy the stocks and bonds.
that is done under state charters, but
so far as it interferes with utility ia
cilities or interstate transportation,
that is within the regulative power of
Congress.
Will Certify Stocks.
Hence it is that a company engaged
in interstate commerce shall not issue
bonds or stock without the certificate
OF the interstate commission, and when
it does that any honest man can buy,
because he is certain that these stocks
and bonds are liable to be used for
lawful purposes.
Another thing, examinations by the
interstate commerce commission show
that large part of interstate railway
business of nearly one-half of the
United States, the western part of the
United States, is under the control of
one management, and that has been
secured by the issuing of stocks and
bonds of one company to buy the stock
OF another until they have gradually
become amalgamated.
IF that system were continued, it
would put the railways of the entire
county under one management, and
make us tremble, as we well might,
that one man should exercise the pow
er that involves. Therefore, there
ought to be provision of the law for
bidding one interstate railroad from
buying in the stock of another inter-
state commerce competing line; for
biding them from having the same di-
rectorS, or a part of the same direct
crate as another interstate commerce
competing line.
Now, Mr.. Bryan says that the in
terstate commerce act loses all of it's,
or good deal of it's strength by reason
of judicial feature that went in there.
Well, with all Difference to that great
authority, | am bound to say that he is
surely in error. A railway company is
like anybody else. 1t is a collection of
individuals. 1t has the right under the
fourteenth amendment and other
amendments of the constitution to en-
joy its own property, and that means
anyone who holds property to use or
operate it for a fair profit. Therefore,
if the administrative tribunal requires
it to use its property without profit at
all, that is confiscatory of the property
and it has the right TO go into court
for its constitutional protection against
such confiscation.
Nov, | come to the subject of
trusts, which are the result of great
combinations of capital. do not say
that combination OF capital is trust.
though it has sometimes been called
so, whether it be illegal or not. Some
times trust means an illegal combi-
nation; sometimes it only means
large combination, without respect to
its llegality.
mo government would be justified
in preventing the assembling of great
capital, such as people deposit in
small sums in savings banks, buying
shares of stock and those who gather
in great corporations to 20 the busi-
ness in such a way that the
cost of the production of things
necessary to the people is re-
duced. But when they combine capi-
tai to monopolize the market in such
way that they raise the prices as
well as reduce the cost of production,
and putthe difference in their own pock-
cts. then they are engaged in what the