Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1908-10-13
HUGHES FINDS FAULT
BUT PROPOSES NOTHING
CONTINUED from First Page.)

trusts as against the people. his
speeches presents all the evidence
needed TO convict him OF lack OF
sympathy with the general public.
Does he manifest any concern
about the wrong done to the p ople
by the trusts? Not the least. Has
he any remedy? Non" whatever.
With him /, is subject OF amuse-
ment: II is really too funny aor any
thing TO think that anybody should
try to do anything.
Offers No Substitute Remedy.
III you vii! read his speeches on
the subject. you will agree with me
v hen Xix n the situation to the
case OF q sick man who is about TO
t"y remedy proposed by phy'i-
clan. Dr. Hughes comes in and says:
'What-Are you going to take that
remedy? Why that is ridiculous:
tina, is absurd and then retir's IRON
tn room laughing and leaving the
patient without remedy and with
out a suggestion. Now ii the pa
,ient Is not really sick. that might
b. excusable, but what do you think
about It? Is the patient sick or mot
If the trusts are doing no harm. then
of course no remedy is needed. IL
tn trusts are doing harm. then why
does not Mr.. Hughes propose SOM
thing?
No War Against Patents.
HE takes the case of a patent ana
says our plan would interfere with
patents. What Is Mr.. Hughes trying
to dc? Is he decSived himself. or
Is he simply trying to deceive those
who listen TO him? Our antitrust
plank has nothing to do with pat
ents. The patent Is intended to De
a monopoly. and our reference 10
patents in another part OF the plat
form is sufficient proof that the con
vention had no intention Of includ'
ing the patent in the operation or
an antitrust law. ! explained th'S
subject some weeks ago "hen the
objection was first made. but the OBJ
lection was so silly that | did not
suppose that it would b. made by
any one with any sense OF respons'
bility. Goes Mr.. Hugh really thinR
that our antitrust plank was intend
Ell to apply to a patent. or is he so
hard pressed for arguments that
must use that argument anyhow? A
patent grants a monopoly for a limit
ed time as a reward for any inven-
tion. =
Trusts Not Limited.
TIL trusts that We are opposed TO
have not invented anything, and they
acknowledge no limit as TO time.
The trusts attempt to corner the
market. and this not only Is against
the statute law, but it is an offense
against the common law, and an o.
* nse against morals, and Mr.. Hughes
cannot be SO obtuse as not to undsr-
stand the distinction between tne
trust that we are fighting. and an
invention that is protected by pat
ent.
The Fifty Per Cent. Limit.
"But 1t us take the so per cent.
limit which he regards as unscienti-
fic. The plan which we propose VIII
amply first to corporations when
have not vet reached the fifty per
cent. limit. and to corporations wnicn
have already reached that limit. Cor
porations which have not yet reach
ed that limit would simply stop ex-
handing when the limit is reached.
and that would entail no hardship
upon them, and it would not be din
cult to apply it to corporations which
have already passed the fifty per
cent. limit. Laws do hot take ed'
feet Immediately upon their passage
Their, is always a time between the
time OF enactment and the date wheE
the law takes effect, and when a law
involves a material change in condi-
lions, a sufficient time is given LOT
necessary readjustment.
Hughes Fixes No Limit.
THE first question 40 be decided
is. how large a proportion Of the en-
tire product should one corporation
he permitted to control? Mr.. Hughes
takss for illustration the case Of a
corporation which controls the entire
production. and as he expresses no
fear Of such a corporation doing
harm We have a right to suppose
that he has no objection to one cor
pora.isn controlling all the product.
but II I mistake not, the s:ntiment
Of the public. there is a very general
objection on the part Of the peopie
Of the principle Of monopoly they
have a right to st a limit to the
control which a corporation can ex-
ercise over the product in which 1t
deals. II the limit which We hx OF
Afty per cent. is too low. Mr.. Hughes
ought 80 suggest a high limit, but