Los Angeles herald., 1908-08-26

prosecuted have not had their business
seriously interrupted. The president
has done something toward the ENFORCE
ment of the law, but not nearly enough,
and the Republican leaders have
thwarted him at every point. Finally
the president became so exasperated
that he sent to congress a message
which shocked Republican leaders by
the fierceness of it's denunciation Of the
predatory interests. The very conven-
tion that spoke in its platform of the
administration as "a wise and fearless
on was composed largely of the SEN
ators and members of congress who
boldly opposed every effort to free the
people from the clutches Of the favor
seeking corporations.
Republican Theory
The Republican platform says that
experience has shown that the eff
fectiveness of the antitrust law could
be strengthened by amend rents Which
will give the federal government
greater supervision. and control over,
and greater publicity as to, the man
agement of those interstate commerce
corporations which have the power and
opportunity to affect monopolies. That
is all. No pointing out of remedies; no
outlining of a plan for more effective
egislation-simply general statement
And Mr.. Taft's speech of acceptance is
even weaker than the platform. He
gives no evidence of having studied the
question or of comprehending the In
iquities of a monopoly. You look in
vain in his notification speech for any
sign of Indignation at what the trusts
have been doing or for evidence of zeal
in their prosecution. He has, for sew
eral years, been the intimate official
companion of the presidei t, but he has
caught none of the fire which the presi-
dent manifested in his message of last
January.
Now, let me contrast the Democratic
platform with the Republican plat
form. Nowhere is the difference in the
temper of the parties more noticeable.
nowhere is the difference in the method
of dealing with questions more mani
fest. Our platform says:
"a private monopoly is indefensible
and intolerable. We therefore, favor
the vigorous enforcement of the crimi-
nal law against guilty trust magnates
and officials, and demand the enact
ment of such additional legislation as
may be necessary to make 1t impos-
sible for a private monopoly to exist
in the United States. Among the addt-
tional remedies, we specify three:
First, q law preventing a duplication
of directors among competing corpora
IlOnSs H6COuQ, d llCSnSC yobCAl WAAANAA
will, without abridging the right of
each state to create corporations, or
it's right to regulate as 1t will foreign
corporations doing business within Its
limits, make 1t necessary for manu-
featuring or trading corporation en-
gagged in interstate commerce to take
out a federal license before 1t shall be
permitted to control as much as 25 per
cent of the product in which 1t deals,
the license to protect the public from
watered stock and to prohibit the con-
troll by such corporation of more tnan
so per cent of the total amount or any
product consumed in the United
States;. and, third, law competing
such licensed corporations to sell TO
a purchaser in all parts of the country
on the same terms, after making due
allowance for cost of transportation
Here is a plain, candid statement OF
the party's position. There is no quip-
bling, no evasion, no ambiguity. A pri-
vate monopoly is indefensible and in
tolerable. It is bad-bad in principle,
and bad in practice. No apology can
be offered for 1t, and no people should
endure it. Our party's position is en-
tirely in harmony with the posltlon Oh
Jefferson. With knowledge OF human
nature which few men have equaleo
and none surpassed, and with extra
ordinary foresight, he expressed un-
alterable opposition to every form OF
private monopoly. The student OF his
tory will find that upon this subject,
as upon other subjects OF government,
the great founder of the Democratic
party took his position upon the sloe
of the whole people and against those
who seek to make a private use OF
government, or strive to secure special
privileges at the expense of the public.
Demands New Laws
a
enforcement Of the law; 1t demands
the enactment of such additional legis-
lation as may be necessary to make 1t
impossible for a private monopoly TO
exist in the United States.
The Democratic party does lot COM
tent itself with a definition of the
wrong or with a denunciation of it. 1t
proceeds to outline remedies. The first
is a law preventing a duplication OF
directors among competing corpora
tions. No one can object to this rem
edy unless ne is III sympathy 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 a number of competing COR
porations. 1t is not necessary for COR
porations to enter into an agreement
for the restraint of trade If the corpo-
rations can, without violating The law,
reach the same end by electing the
same directors.
A trust can best be defined as corr
poration which controls so large pro-
portion of the total quantity OF any
article used in this country as to be
able to regulate the price and terms OF
sale, and as the proportion controlled
determines the power Of the trust for
harm, it has seemed best to use proper
tionate control as the basis OF this
plan, and % per cent has been hxed
arbitrarily as the proportion at which
the line should be drawn. A corpo-
ration which controls less than 20 per
cent of the product in which 1t deals,
may, in extraordinary cases, exert
influence in controlling the
price of the product and the terms OF
sale, but as a rule a corporation must
control more than that percentage of
the total product before 1t can exert
hurtful influence on trade. Under this
plan, the small corporations are left
entirely free and unhampered. This is
not a discrimination against the larger
but recognition OF the
fact that rules are necessary in the
case Of corporations controlling large
of the product which are
not necessary in the case of smaller
Probably not 1 per cent
of the corporations engaged in inter-
state commerce would be required to
take out a license under this plan
possibly not one-half of one per cent
and yet what a protection the remain
ing SO per cent would find in the law
requiring license in the case of the
larger ones!
The license, however, would not
prevent the growth of the corporations
licensed. 1t would simply bring them
under the eve of the federal government