Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1908-09-18

49, @~~sD~s~ 49, 49, MOt VII
tent itself with a dellnitipn q the
wrong or with a denuntAtion or It.
1t proceeds to outline remedies. The
'firskis a law preventing. duplica.
ton Of directors among competing
corporations. No. one can. object to
this remedy unless he is in sympa-
thy with the trusts, rather than
with the people who are yictimized
by the trusts. There Is no easier
way Of sitting competition than to
make one board Of directors serve
for number Of competing directors
for a number of competing corpora.
lions. 1t is not necessary for corpo.
rations to enter into an agreement
Tor the restraint of trade If the
corporations can, without violating
the law, reach the same end by elect.
ing the same directors.
The second remedy is one upon
which l desire to dwell at some
length. We believe it to be a sim
pie, complete and easily enforced
remedy. AS stated in the platform
it is:
"A license system which will, with.
out abridging the right of each state
to create corporations, or its right
to regulate as it will foreign corpo.
rations doing business within its
limits. make it necessary for a man
ufacturing or trading corporation en-.
gagged in interstate commerce to
take out federal license before it
shall be permitted to control as
much as twenty-five per cent of the
product in which it deals, the Ii.
cense to protect the public from
watered stock and to prohibit the
control 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 abridgment of the
right of a state to create corpora.
tons or Of its right to regulate as
1t will foreign corporations doing bus.
mess within its limits. This plan,
therefore, does not in the least in.
fringe upon the right Of the state
to protect their own people. 1t sinp.
ly provides for the exercise by con.
gress Of the power vested in it to
regulate interstate commerce. AS
long as a corporation confines Itself
to the state in which 1t Is created
congress can not interfere with It;
but when the corporation engages in
interstate commerce, congress Is
the only power that can regulate
its interstate business.
In proposing the exercise Of this
power, the democratic platform is
not asserting a new doctrine. In
January, 1896, republican house OF
representatives adopted a resolution
calling upon HON. Judson Harmon,
then attorney general of the United
States, now the democratic candi
date for governor in Ohio, to report
what steps, if any had been taken
to enforce the law of the United
States against trusts, combinations
and conspiracies in restraint of trade
and commerce, and what further
legislation was, in his opinion, need
ed to protect the people against the
same. On the 9Th day Of February
he submitted a reply, in which he
described the steps which were be-
ing taken to enforce the law, and
recommended the enactment Of furth'
er legislation. l call special attention
to the following words:
Congress may make 1t unlawful
to ship from one state to another, in
carrying out, or attempting to carry
out, the designs Of such state) or
CARNATIONS, articles produced, owned
or controlled by them or any Of their
members or agents"
His recommendation embodies the
very idea which our plan now pro-
poses to carry out. We want to
make it unlawful for a corporation
to use the instrumentalities Of In.
terstate commerce for the carrying
out Of a monopolistic purpose. Sure
ly no party can consistently claim to
be opposed to private monopolies
which will permit the Interstate raik
roads to be used to carry out the
designs Of q monopoly, or which will
permit the interstate telegraph lines
to be used to increase the power Of
a private monopoly; or, to make the
case stronger, no party can consist
emily claim to be opposed to the
y