Wausau pilot. [volume] (Wausau, Wis.) 1896-1940, 1908-09-08
BRYAN DISCUSSES THE TRUSTS


ger point, and thereafter subjects it to
federal scrutiny. The present law simply
PROMPTS it in an indefinite sort of way
and then leaves the officers of the law TO
scour the country and hunt up violations
OF The laws provisions. Mr.. Taft is I'M
duly alarmed at this proposal, or else he
entirely fails to comprehend the details of
the plan. He says:
10 supervise the business of corpora
tons IN such way as to fix the price of
commodities and compel the sale at such
price is as absurd and socialistic plank
as was ever inserted in a Democratic po-
litical platform
And yet this sentence is found in the
same paragraph with the sentence above
quoted IN which he declares that it is
even now violation of the Sherman anti
trust law for a corporation to attempt TO
destroy competitor by selling at low
and improbable price where it has COM
petition and at an exorbitant price where
it has no competition. In what respect is
our plan more socialistic than the plan
which Mr.. Taft indorses? Merely in the
fact that ours can be enforced. Accord
ing to Mr.. Taft's logic, a plan is not
socialistic which is not effective, but the
same would be socialistic if made effec-
tive.
Taft Has No Remedies.
The trouble with Secretary Taft Is
that he spends so much time trying to
discover excuses for inaction in trust mat
tiers that he has none left for the con-
=
spends more time uttering warnings
against remedies proposed than he does
in pointing out the evils to be remedied
or in suggesting remedies. He says:
THE combination of capital in large
plants to manufacture goods with the
greatest economy is just as necessary as
the assembling of the parts of a machine
to the economical and more rapid manu-
facture of what in old times was made by
hand"
And he adds that ''the government
should not interfere with one any more
than the other, when such aggregations
of capital are legitimate and are properly
controlled, for they are the natural re-
suits of modern enterprise and are bene-
fetal to the public"
No one proposes to interfere with pro-
duction on large scale. No one objects
to production on a scale sufficiently large
to enable the producer to utilize by-pro-
ducts and take advantage of all the
economics that large production makes
possible. 1t is just here that the trust
magnates attempt to confuse the public
mind, and Mr.. Taft has unconsciously
adopted their language.
Let the issue be made plain; let the dis
tinction be accurately drawn; let the re-
spective positions of the parties be fully
understood. The Democratic party does
not oppose all corporations on the con-
trary, it recognizes that the corporation
can render an important service to the
public. The Democratic party wants to
employ every instrumentality that can be
employed for the advancement of the
common good; but the Democratic party
draws the line at the private monopoly
and declares that private monopoly can
not be justified on either economic or DO
litical grounds.
Says Opponent Misunderstands.
Mr.. Taft either misunderstands or mis-
gard to the determination of the principle
of private monopoly. In his notification
speech he says:
"Mr. Roosevelt would compel the trusts
to conduct their business in a lawful
manner and secure the benefits of their
operation and the maintenance of the
prosperity of the country of which they
are an important part, while Mr.. Bryan
would extirpate and destroy the entire
business in order to stamp out the evils
which they have practiced."
Here is a confession by Mr.. Taft that
he regards the trusts as necessary to the
nations prosperity, for he declares that
they play an important part in the main
tenance of prosperity, and he charges that
1 would "extirpate and destroy" business
in extirpating and destroying the princi-
pie of private monopoly. Surely, his
study of the trust question has been very
superficial, if he sees danger in the restor-
alton of a reign of competition.
The Democratic party is the defender
of competition and the only great party
which is seeking to restore competition.
Mr. Taft has, in the discussion of this
question, employed harsh words instead
of argument The word "socialistic" is
hurled at the Democratic party and the
Democratic platform. Now, as a matter
of fact, it is Mr.. Taft's party and not
the Democratic party which has given en-
enlargement to socialism. While pro-
Tossing to abhor socialism, the Republi-
can party has gone half way toward so
cialism in indorsing its fundamental prin-
ciple. The socialist bases his contention
ON the theory that competition is bad,
and that an economic advance is to be
found in monopoly. The socialist, how
ever, wants the public to have the ben
eft of the monopoly and, therefore, favors
government ownership and operation of
all the means of production and distribu-
ton. The Republican party has gone al
most as far as the Socialist party in the
economic defense of the monopoly, but it
permits the benefits of monopoly to be
enjoyed by comparatively few men, who
have secured a dominant influence in the
government.