The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-08-25


veillance of the government when it
has reached the danger point, and
thereafter subjects 1t to federal scru-
tiny. The present law simply prohib-
its 1t in an indefinite sort of way. and
then leaves the officers Of the law to
tons Of the laws provisions. Mr.. Taft
Is unduly alarmed at this proposal, or
else he entirely fails to comprehend
the details of the plan. He says:
ITO supervise the business Of cor
porations in such way as to fix the
price of commodities and compel the
sale at such price is as absurd and So
cialiStic plank as was ever inserted
in Democratic political platform"
And yet this sentence is found in the
same paragraph with the sentence
above quoted in which he declares that
1t is even now a violation of the Sher-
man antitrust law for a corporation
to attempt to destroy a competitor by
selling at low and improbable price
where it has competition. and at an ex-
orbitant price where 1t has no compe-
tttfon. In what respect Is our plan
more socialistic than the plan which
Mr.. Taft endorses? Merely in the fact
that ours can be enforced. According
to Mr.. Taft's logic, a plan is not So
cialistic which Is not effective, but the
same would be socialistic II made effec-
tive. Why should corporation sup
plying 20 millions of people-for cor
poration controlling 25 per cent Of the
total product supplies one-fourth, or
more, of our population-should such a
corporation be permitted to sell at one
price in one part of the country and
at another price in another part? What
reason can corporation have Tor sucn
discrimination? Prices are not made
as a matter of favor: when big cor
poration sells to the people of one sec
ton at one price and the people of an
other section at another price-the cost
of transportation being taken into con-
sideration-there is reason for 1t. and
in almost every case the reason Is to
be found in the effort to destroy COM
petitor One of the most familiar meth
DDS of the trust Is to undersell a small
competitor in the small competitors
territory-the price being maintained
elsewhere-until the small competitor is
driven to bankruptcy and then the price
is raised. That has been done over and
over again. 1t is open and notorious;
and yet, with the Republican party In
complete power at Washington, what
This remedy although vehemently de-
nounced by Mr.. Taft. will appeal to the
average man as not only very saiutary,
but very necessary
Taft's Objection.
Fifty percent is fixed as the maxi
mum limit. When a corporation con-
trolls so per cent of the total product,
with that product. Is that not
enough? Mr.. Taft's objection to this |
limitation can hardly be characterized |
as statesmanlike. He says:
per cent of the product. may by well
known methods, frequently erect
and stamp out composition
in a part of a country as completely as
f it controlled 60 or 20 per cent
thereof"
Why, then, does he not propose
over limit? If the control of As per
cent may constitute monopoly. why
loes ne not suggest that as maxi
mum? 1t can not be because or any
dissemination to amend ms pIas,o1n,
or he has already made PATCHWORK
luilt of the conventions platform py
oromiscuous amendments.
And to what "well known" methods
loes he refer? To the underselling OF
in one section while the
price is maintained elsewhere? And
ret this is the very thing which we
propose to remedy, but he proceeds to
ienounce our remedy as absurd and
,ocialistic. The trouble with Secre-
ary Taft is that he spends so much
ime trying to discover excuses Tor IN
Lction in trust matters" that he has
zone left for the consideration OF ef-
ective remedies. He spends more
ime uttering warnings against reme>
lies proposed than he does in pointing
nut the evils to be remedied or in sug-
resting remedies. He says:
.aThe combination of capital in large
plants to manufacture goods with the
greatest economy is just as necessary
Machine to the economical and more
a hid manufacture of what in old
lines was made by hand
Let the Issue Be Made Plain.
And he adds that:
s"The government should not inter-
ere with one any more than the other,
when sucn aggregations or capi,ai are
legitimate and are properly controlled.
or they are the natural results OF
modern enterprise and are beneficial
o the public"
No one proposes to interfere with
on a large scale. No one
,biects to production on a scale sum-
.icntly large to enable the producer TO
Utilize by-products and take advantage
n all the economies that large produc-
ion makes possible. 1t is just here
hat the trust magnates attempt to
.onfuse the public mind. and Mr.. Taft
las unconsciously adopted their Ian
,uage.
Let the issue be made plain: let the
distinction be accurately drawn: let
he respective positions or me parties
,e fully understood. The Democratic
,arty does not oppose all corporations
IN the contrary, it recognizes that the
can render an important
ervice to the public. The Democratic
,arty wants to employ every fnstru-
mentality that can be employed for
he advancement Of the common GOOD;
,ut the Democratic party draws the
inc at the private monopoly, and de-
.Iares that a private monopoly can not
,e justified on either economic or po-
itical grounds.
From an economic standpoint. a
monopoly is Objectionable. The mo-
nent a corporation secures prac-
ical monopoly in the production or
ale Of any article. certain evils ap-
Bear which outweigh any good that