Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1907-12-04


i permanently beneficial character can
be given to the less able and less for
tunate save as the results of a policy
which shall innre to the advantage of
all industrious and efficient people who
z act decently, and this is only another
way of saying that any benefit which
comes to the less able and less fortu-
nate must of necessity come even more
TO the more able and more fortunate.
If therefore the less fortunate man
is moved by envy of his more fortu-
nate brother to strike at the condi-
lions under which they have both,
though unequally, prospered, the result
will assurediy be that, while damage
may come to the one struck at, 1t will
visit with an even heavier load the
one who strikes the blow. Taken as
a whole, we must all go up or go down
together.
Yet, while not merely admitting but
insisting upon this, it is also true that
where there Is no governmental re-
straint or supervision some of the ex-
ceptional men use their energies not
In ways that are for the common good.
but in ways which tell against this
common good The fortunes 'amassed
through corporate organization are now
so large and vest such power in those
that WELD them as to make it matter
Of necessity to give to the sovereign
that is, to the government, which rep
resents the people as a wholesome eff
fective power of supervision over their
corporate use. In order to insure a
healthy social and Industrial life every
big corporation should be held respon-
sible by and be accountable to some
sovereign strong enough to control its
conduct. am in no sense hostile to
corporations. This is an age of com
bination, and any effort to prevent all
combination will be not only useless,
but in the end vicious, because of the
contempt for law which the failure to
enforce law inevitably produces, We
should, moreover, recognize in cordial
and ample fashion the immense good
effected by corporate agencies in a
country such as ours and the wealth
of intellect energy and fidelity devoted
to their service, and therefore normally
to the service of the public, by their Of
hcers and directors. The corporation
has come to stay, just as the trades
union has come to stay. Each can do
and has dore great good. Each should
I be favored SO long as 1t does good
But each should be sharply checked
where 1t acts against law and justice.
The makers of our national
constitution provided especially that
the regulation of Interstate commerce
should come within the sphere OF the
general government The arguments
In favor of their taking this stand were
even then overwhelming. But they are
far stronger today, in view Of the enor-
NOUS development of great business
agencies, usually corporate In form.
Experience has shown conclusively
that it is useless to try to get any ade-
quate regulation and supervision Of
3 these great corporations by state ac-
ton. Such regulation and supervision
can only be effectively exercised by a
sovereign whose Jurisdiction is coex-
tensive with the field of work of the
corporations that is, by the national
government. If believe that this regu-
lation and supervision can be obtained
by the enactment of law by the CON
gress. Our steady aim should
be by legislation. cautiously and care
fully undertaken, but resolutely per-
severed in, to assert the sovereignty of
the national government by affirmative
action.
This is only In form an innovation.
In substance. it is merely restoras
I ton, for from the earliest time such
regulation of industrial activities has
been recognized In the action of the
II lawmaking bodies, and all that pro-
pose Is to meet tine changed conditions
In such manner as will prevent the
commonwealth abdieating the power
it has always possessed, not only in
this country, but also in England, be-
fore and since this country became a
separate nation. zs..
1T has been misfortune that the
4 national laws on this subject have
hitherto been of negative OF prohib-
tive rather than an affirmative kind
& and still more that they have In part
sought to prohibit what could not be
effectively prohibited and have In part
In their prohibitions eonfounded what
should be allowed and what should
not be allowed. 1t is generally useless
\ TO try to prohibit all restraint on com
Z petition, whether this restraint be rea-
sonable or unreasonable, and where 1t
s Is not useless it is generally hurtful.
The successful prosecution of
one device to eyade the law immedi-
sEately develops another device to accom-
piish the same purpose. What is need
ed is not sweeping prohibition OF every
I arrangement, good or bad, which may
tend to restrict competition, but such
adequate supervision and regulation as
will prevent any restriction Of COM
petition from being to the detriment Of
the public. as well as such supervision
and regulation as Will prevent other
abuses IN no way connected with re-
strietion Of conlpet ition."
have called your attention In these
quotations to what i have already said
q - ~ ~.