The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-02-05

three classes-petit. grand and glori- ous. By glorious larceny. he said he referred to the tendency to regard stealing upon a large scale as less reprehensible than stealing upon small scale, which has led to the sug- gestion that the commandant he amended to read 'Thout shalt not steal on a small scale"
 illustrates Larceny.
 Mir. Bryan took the administration of the tax laws to illustrate what he called larceny in violation of the law.
 If two men live side by side" said he, and one contributes in taxation ten dollars when his just share is only five dollars and the other only pays loses five dollars that he ought 70 keep, while the other keeps five dol- lars that he ought. to give to the gov- ernment. The effect in this case is just the same as If one man took the other mans property and applied 1t to his own use. The fact that the govern ment acting as a collector. took the five dollars from the man who is over burdened and gave 1t to the man who is under-burdened does not change the character of the transaction.
 'The subject of private monoply furnishes us another Illustration Of larceny and here it is not petit larceny nor even graded larceny; 1t rises to the proportions of a glorious larceny. not only because of the amount taken but because of the responsibility of those who receive the stolen goods. The object of a private monopoly fs to control the price of the thing sold: it is to corner tho market. The theory is that mans, necessities require him to buy certain things which sustain his life and add to his comfort. Where there is competition the sellers bid against each other and the purchaser is able to secure what he needs at price which is approximately fair. If, however. all of the vendors can be brought together in a combination so that all purchasers must buy of the same vendor, competition is eliminated and the man who fixes the price, fixes 1t arbitrarily; and we know enough of human nature to know he is apt to charge all that the traffic will bear
 T insist that the commandment Thou shalt not steal applies as much to the monopolist as to the highway man. We shall not make any material progress in, the protection of the people from private monopolies until we are prepared to obliterate the line that society has drawn between the ordinary theft and the larger criminal who holds up society and plungers the public thorugh the instrumentality of private monopoly.
 EseapinR Punishment.
 And 1t is not sufficient that we shall appeal to the conscience of the monopolist alone If highwayman were to engage c lawyer to follow a few rods behind him with a horse that he might have a ready means of escape after having committed an act of rob- bery. we would call the lawyer a party to the crime and we would visit upon him the same punishment visited upon the principal in the robbery and yet 1t is considered quite respectable today for the legal representatives of preda- tory wealth to visit state capitals and national capitals and prevent the enactment, Of laws intended to protect the public from private monopolies; and 1t is even more respectable for the salarted attorneys of these monopoIies to follow close after the offenders and furnish them horses in tho way af legal terhn5ealiftes ua0u seiIieh tS esenpe punishment.
 And some of our metropolitan papers are in the same class with the unscrupuious lawyer.
 'Ts 1t not time to raise the moral standard and to insist that our laws shall be made for the enforcement or human, rights- and not for the protec- ton of those who violate these rights? Shall we continue to be mortified at housenreaking and the picking of ones pocket and yet view complacently and without concern these million Collar raids upon the earnings of the entire population? Sure VIC are Justified in applying to the trust question the com mandment Thou shalt not steaI.'"