Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-07-29
Should BE Limited to SnsalLs Percent
age by Classification.

age by Classification.
1t is necessary, therefore, to devise
some means for classifying and iiisur-
ing Federal supervision of such cor
porations as have the power ana
temptation to effect restraints OF IN
terstate trade and monopoles. Such
corporations constitute a very small
percentage of all engaged in interstate
business.
Mr.. Roosevelt's Proposed Classifi-
cation.
With such classification in view, Mr.
Roosevelt recommended an amendment
to the antitrust law, known as the
Hepburn bill, which provided for vol
untary classification, and created
strong rotive therefor by granting
immunity from prosecution for reason
at le restraints of Interstate trade TO
all generations which would register
AMI submit themselves to the publicity
regulations of the Department of Com
merCa and Labor.
The Democratic Proposed Classical
ton.
The Democratic platform suggests
requirement that corporations in
interstate trade having control of %
per cent of the products in which
they deal shall take out Federal
license This classification would
probably include a great many small
corporations engaged in the manufac-
ture of special articles, or commodi-
ties whose total value is so incOn
siderable that they are not really
nf
antitrust law.
1t is not now necessary, however,
to discuss the relative merit of such
propositions but it is enough merely
to affirm the necessity for some
method by which greater executive
supervision can be given to the
Federal Government over those bust
nesses in which there is a temptation
to violations of the antitrust law
Construction of Anti Trust Law
Possible Necessity for Amendment.
The possible operation of the anti
trust law under existing rulings of
| the Supreme Court has given rise to
suggestions for its necessary amend
ment to prevent it's application
| to cases which it is believed
| were never in the contempla-
| ton of the farmers of the statute.
| Take two instances: A merchant or
manufacturer engaged in legitimate
| business that covers certain States,
| wishes to sell his business and his
good will, and 50 in the terms of the
| sale obligates himself to the purchaser
not to go into the same business in
| those States. Such a restraint of
trade has always been enforced at
| common law. Again, the employees
of an interstate railway combine and
| enter upon a peaceable and laWfui
strike to secure better wages. AT
common law this was not a restraint
of trade or commerce or a violation
of the rights of the company or of the
public Neither case ought to be
made violation of the antitrust
law. My own impression is that the
Supreme Court would hold that
neither Of these instances are within
so regarded, general legislation
amending the law is necessary.
Democratic Plank to Limit Corpora
tions to Ownership of so Per Cent
4 of Plant and Product Faulty.
The suggestion of the Democratic
platform that trusts be ended by for
bidding corporations to hold more
than so per cent of the plant in any
line of manufacture is made without
regard to the possibility of enforce
ment or the real evil in trusts. A
corporation controlling as or SO pei
cent. of the products may be well
known methods frequently effect
monopoly and stamp out competition
in a part of the country as completely
as if it controlled 60 or 70 per cent
thereof.
Compulsory Sale Of Products at Fixed
Price Impractical.
The proposal to compel every cor
poration to sell its commodities at the
same price the country over, allowing
for transportation. is utterly i'm
practicable If it can be shown that
in order to drive out competition, d
competitors, at a low and unprofit-
plant producing an article is selling in
one part of the country, where it has
competitors. at low and unprofit-
able price, and in another part of the
u country, WIfeIc IL Ids IloHc, dI On c&
orbitant price, this is evidence that il
is attempting an unlawful monopoly
and justifies conviction under the
anti trust law; but the proposal tC
| supervise the business of corporations
in such a way as to fix the price OF
commodities and compel the sale al
| such price is as absurd and socialistiC
plank as was ever inserted in q
Democratic political platform.
Difference Between Republican ane
Democratic Policies and Platforms:
Former Progressive and Regulative;
Latter Radical and Destructive.
The chief difference between the
Republican and the Democratic plat
forms is the difference which has
heretofore been seen between the
policies of Mr.. Roosevelt and those
which have been advocated by the
Democratic candidate, Mr.. Bryan
Mr.. Roosevelts policies have beer
progressive and regulative; Mr.
Bryans destructive. Mr.. Roosevelt
has favored regulation of the business