Custer County Republican. (Broken Bow, Neb.) 1882-1921, 1908-10-08

Oh tIe skill anu lnlClNtlVe OF InanuIhC-
turers who have built up more or
less exclusive trade in particular ar-
ticles, often protected by trade marks,
although in most active competition
same general purpose and seeking the
same market? In a desire to correct
the evils Of business are we to place
an embargo upon honest endeavor
whose activities present none Of the
abuses requiring remedies? And, II
not, what statutory definitions shall be
found to be adequate and just If we
lay down our prohibition in terms OF
volume or ratio of business and not In
terms Of right and wrong? If we
adopt Mr.. Bryan's proposal, to what pc
riod of production is the prohibition
to apply? Is the excess for a day or
for month to be considered? Or is
the average production for year to be
taken? And what system shall be de-
vised by which suitable information
may be furnished in the nature of dan
ger signals along the routes Of trade
SO that the manufacturer may know
when he is about to exceed the pre-
scribed ratio? He may justly be re-
quired to govern his own conduct, but
how shall he be apprised of the con-
duct of others upon which Is to depend
his guilt or innocence?
The patent laws confer true
monopoly in the exclusive right to man
ufacture and sell. Are these laws to
be repealed because private mon
opoly is indefensible and intolerable?"
Bryan's Crude Reasoning.
An example of Mr.. Bryans reason
Ing is found in his statement that
''when corporation controls 50 per
cent OF the total product it supplies
forty millions of people with that prod
uct.' There are, of course specialties
which have limited market and are
the people of the United States. More
than so per cent, and indeed even as
much as 100 per cent of the trade in
such articles may be in the control
Of particular corporation. This may,
in fact be relatively small corpora
tion. 1t may never have aspired to the
unsavory renown Of trust" But by
prosecuting its particular line with
fidelity and meeting satisfactorily a
limited want; or by reason of some
secret processes or advantage Of expert
ence, it may control the trade in a Siv-
Ell article of commerce. Or, suppose a
concern controls the whole trade In
some useful byproduct which 1t has
found it advantageous to make, is the
trade to be prohibited?
The Democratic platform makes no
exceptions to cover such cases, and we
have learned that it is equally binding
as to what 1t omits."
If we could imagine such a crude
prohibition to be enacted into law, and
to be regarded as valid, what would be
the effect? Mr.. Bryan, with his usual
readiness, suggests that the concern
may sell as much of its plants as are
not needed to produce the amount al
lowed by law. He speaks as though
every manufacturing concern had as
many fully equipped units OF produc-
ton as would correspond to any given
percentage OF trade which II might be
required to lop of. Plants are not so
easily dismembered. Reduction in out
put means reduction In work, reduction
in the number of men employed and
curtailment OF the efficiency of going
concern. Let us suppose concern
which controls 80 per cent Of Il given
product-that is to say, makes and
sells $S,0OO,O00 in value out of q total
trade in the product amounting to S10,-
100000. Is 1t TO be compelled to reduce
its output to S2OOO,OOO because only
$2O0O,0Oo in value are made by others?
Then, If It could sell part of Its plant
on Mr.. Bryan's theory, what should 1t
| sell? Should 1t sell OF enough to re-
duce its capacity to S5,0O0,OOO and
allow thrse-titth Of its plant to remain
idle until others developed a capacity
for handling the other S5,0OOOOO?
Should 1t assume that the total trade
will increase and is not always to re-
main at slo.oQQ.0Oo. and hence retain