The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-08-26
pRTH KERN FORMAL Y NOTIFIED

to secure special privileges at the ex.
 have. in discnssins the sarifr cues. ton presented one Of our remedies imports which compete with tr9sl made goods. This. we beiieve womb greatly lessen the extortion practiceS oy the trusts aud bring about the dis. pines. But we are not satisfea Witf lne iesseninx of extortion or with ths diisso,uslon ssds q some of the trusts.
 dsfensbis and insoisraSs SSn0gESoiy ES psmo ,s in
 GGratie party favors its exterminati ton U pledges itself to the vigorous en. ttorcement toss of the criminal law agains impossible for the Republican party 10 enforce the present criminal law against aga trust officials. these oficlaiI nps nns,insn ,iinsimstely connected with the Re. paign. Take for instance. the chair. n1ltsss. P ,s MT: papont. of Dsiawars Hs government Srousht a and du is mnaeI noW pros. ea. ecuting. Mir. Dupont Is charged with violation ot the antitrust law. Why co%mtts ss s pl, ss.G on the v. 1f the speaking part of the campaign & at you talk to a Republican leader fenSsrp peSpisentsaTy pn sYcy Rnn,ishment for of aon. on the ground thai it Is impos- sible to convict individuals but when you urge lines you are told that fines We favor both ane osS and imprisonment il0IsoOaent but We think 1t Is better to prevent monopoiies than to first authoR 5r. fhs . 10 prey upon the, public Sadna Sadna then is1, trV favors control of ,frusts sG Insteaa laas as extermination hrc st ansseaI oi perience the pagsonie have iearneS tSat
 Our piafxs 5ntrol the government. enforcsrarssiorm does not stop with the en a~s.rf$lent of the law; 1t demands the 'NifaGtment of such additional iegisla- ton as may be necessary to make 1t impossible for private monopoly ot exist in the Uuited States.
 The Democratic Party does not con- tent itself with a definition of the wrong or with a denunciatfon of it. It proceeds to outline remedies. The hrst Is law preventing a duplication oI directors among competing corpora edy unless he is in sympathy with the trusts. rather than with the people who are victimized by the trusts. There is no easier way of stifling competition than to make one board of directors serve for a number of competing cor porattons. It is not necessary for cor porations to enter into an agreement for the restraint of trade if the cor Dcfations can. without violating the law. reach the same end by electinR the same directors.
 The second remedy is one upon which \ desire to dwell at some length. We believe 1t to be a simple. complete and easily enforced remedy. As stated in the platform 1t is:
 "A license system which will with out abridging the right of each State to create corporations. or its right to regulate as 1t will foreign corporations doing business within it's limits. make it necessary for manufacturing or trading corporation engaged in inter state commerce to take out a Federal license before 1t shall be permitted to control as much as twenty-five per cent of the product In which 1t deals. the license to protect the public from watered stock and to prohibit the con- trol by such corporation of more than fifty per cent of the total amount of any product consumed In the United States"
 1t will be noticed, in the first place, that care was taken by those who drew the platform to provide that there should be no abridgement of the right of a State to create corporations. or of It's right to regulate as 1t will foreign corporations doing business within its limits. This plan, therefore, does not in the least infringe upon the right of tho States to protect their own people. 1t simply provides for the exercise by Congress of the power vested in 1t to regulate interstate commerce. As long as corporation confines itself