The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1908-08-25

petition. In what respect is our plan
Mr. Taft indorses? Merely in the fact
that ours can be enforced. According
cialistic which is not effective, but the
same would be socialistic if made eff
fective. Why should a corporation
supplying 2O.600.00O people-for cor
poration controlling % 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 a corporation have
for such discrimination? Prices are
not made as a matter of favor; wnen
a big corporation sells to the people OF
one section at one price and the people
of another section at another price-the
cost of transportation being taken into
Observation-Disclosures is a reason for IT,
and in almost every case the reason is
to be found in the effort to destroy a
competitor. One of the most familiar
methods of the trust is to undersell
small competitor in the small COM
petitor's territcry-tne 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. IT is
open and notorious: and vet, with the
republican party in complete power at
Washington. what effort has been made
to prevent this? This remedy. al
though vehemenily denounced by Mr..
Taft, will appeal to the average man as
not only very salutary. but very neces-
sary.
Fifty per cent is fiXcl as the maxi
mum limit When corporation cen
trolls so per cent of the total product,
it supplies 100000 people with that
product. Is that not enough? Mr.
Tafts objection to this limitatiO can
hardly be characterized as statesman
like. He says:
A corporation controlling As or so
per cent of the product may by well
known methods. frequently effect
MONOPOLY and stamp out competition in
part Of the country as completely as
If it controlled so or 20 per cent
thereof
"And to whae well known methods
does he refer2 To the underselling of
competitors in one section while the
price is maintained elsewhere? And yet
this is the very thing which We pro-
pose to remedy but he proceeds co de-
nOnnce our remedy as absurd and So
"'a"Stin. The trouble with Secretary
Taft is that he spe-i.ls so much time
trying to discover excuses for inactio1
in trust matters that he has none left
for the considerations Of effective rem
ed1es- He spends more time uttering
warnings against remedies proposed
than he does in pointing out the evils
to be remedied or in suggesting rene
dies. He saws:
The combination of capital in
large plants to manufacture goods with
the greatest economv is just as neces-
sarv as the assembling Of the parts of
machine to the economical an dmore
rapid manufacture of what in old times
was made by hand
"And he adds that:
The government should not inter-
fere with one any more than the other,
When such aggregations OF capital are
legitimate and are properly controlled
for they are the natural results of
modern enterprise and are beneficial TO
the public
NC one proposes to interfere with
production on large scale. No one OBJ
Jects to production on a scale suffi-
clently large to enable the producer to
utilize by-products and take advantage
OF all the economies that large produc-
ton makes possible. 1t is just here
that the trust magnates attempt to
confuse the public mind and Mr.. Taft
has unconsciously adopted their Ian
guage.
The Issues Plain.
Let the issue be made plain. LET tho
distinction be accurately drawn: let
the respective positions of the parties
be fully understood. The democratic
party does not oppose all corporations;
on the contrary, it recognizes that the
corporation can render an important
service to the public. The democratic
party wants to employ every instru-
mentality that can be employed for the
advancement of the common good; but
the democratic party draws the line at
private monopoly. and declares that a
private monopoly can not be juslihed
on either economic or political grounds.
From an economic standpoint a mo-
nopoly is Objectionable. The moment
corporation secures a practical monop-
oily in the production or sale Of any
article, certain evils appear which out
weigh any good than can come from
large production or control. Wherever
private monopolies exist, certain IRE
sistible tendencies manifest them
selves. First. it raises prices-lhis is
the first thing thought of for the In
creasing of profits. Then. in proper
ton as it becomes the only purchaser
Of the raw material, it reduces the
price of the raw material, and the pro-
Queer of that raw material. having no
other market. must accept the price
offered. In this way, too, the profits
of the corporation are increased. Third
a reduction in the quality of the prod
uct affords an opportunity for increas-
ing profits. Fourth, reduction in wages
follows wherever conditions will per-
mir