The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-08-26

I government must seek the defendant; by
the use of the license system, the corpo-
| ration is compelled to seek the govern
/ ment.
A trust can best be defined as corpo-
| ratien which controls so large proper
| ton 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. IL mas
! seemed best to use proportionate control
as the basis of this plan, and 25 per cent
| has been fixed arbitrarily as the proper
! ton at which the line should be drawn.
A corporation which controls less than
! % per cent OF the product in which II
deals, may, in extraordinary cases, exert
a perceptible 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 IL can exert hurt
ful influence on trade. Under this plan.
the small corporations are left entirely
free and unhampered. This is not a dis
elimination against the larger corpora
ton, but a recognition of the fact that
! rules are necessary in the case of cor
porations controlling large percentage OF
the product which are not necessary IN
the case of smaller corporations. Prob
ably not ! per cent of the corporations
engaged in interstate commerce would be
required TO take out license under this
plan-possibly not one-half of l per cen\-
and vet what a protection the remaining
80 per cent would find in the law re.
quiring license in the case or the larger
ones.
Error of Judge Taft.
The license, however, would not prevent
the growth of the corporations licensed.
1t would simply bring them under the
eye of the federal government and compel
them to deal with the public in such
way as to afford the public the protec-
ton necessary One of the restrictions
suggested is that such licensed corpora
lions be compelled to sell TO all purchas-
ers in all parts of the country on me
same terms. after making due allowance
for cost of transportation. Mr.. Tart at
tacks this restriction as utterly imprac-
ticable." He says: IF it can be shown
that in order TO drive out competition,
a corporation, owning a large part OF the
plant producing an article is selling IN
one part of the country, where II has COM
petition. at a low and Improbable price,
and in another part of the country, where
it has none. at an exorbitant price. this
is evidence that it is attempting an UNI
lawful monopoly and justifies CONVICTION
under the antitrust law.
If such an act is now unlawful why is
he so frightened at a plan which gives
to the small competitor this very pro-
lection The trouble with the present law
Is that il does not restrain the evils az
which IL is aimed. The plan proposed
in the Democratic platform brings the cor
poration under the surveillance OF the
government when IL has reached the dan
ger point. and thereafter subjects ii to
federal scrutiny. The present law simply
prohibits it in an indefinite sort or way,
and then leaves the officers OF the law 70
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:
TO supervise the business of corpora
tons in such way as TO fix the price
OF commodities and compel the sale al
such price is as absurd and soeiansuc
a plank as was ever inserted In DEM
ocratic political platform
Lame Republican Logic.
And yet this sentence - round in the
same paragraph with the sentence above
quoted in which he declares that 1t is
even now a violation of the Sherman
antitrust law for a corporation to at
at a low and Improbable price where
il has competition. and at an exorbitant
price where 1t 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 en-
forced. According to Mr.. Tafts logic
a plan is not sOcialistic which Is not ell
fective, but the same would be socialistic
If made effective Why should a corpor-
alton supply twenty millions of people
for corporation controlling p per cent
of the total product supplies one,tourth,
or more. of our population-should SUCH
a corporation be permitted TO sell at one
price in one part of the country and at
another price in another part? What
discrimination? Prices are not made as
matter of favor; when big corpora
ton sells 20 the people of one section
at one price and the people OF another
section at another price-the cost of trans
portation being taken into consideration
there is n reason for II, and in almost
every case the reason is to be found in the
effort to destroy a competitor. one OF
the most familiar methods of the trust
is 10 undersell a small competitor in the
small competitors territory-the price be-
ing maintained elsewhere-until the small
competitor is driven to bankruptcy ana
then the price is raised. That has been
done over and over again. 1t is open
and notorious; and yet, with the Repubii-
ton. what effort has been made to pre-
vent tihes. This remedy, although vehe-
mently denounced by Mr.. Taft, will APP
peal TO the average man as not only
very salutary, but very necessary.
Foolish Objections.
Fifty per cent is fixed as the maximum
limit. When corporation controls 90
per cent of the total product, it sup
plies forty millions of people with that
product. Is that not enough? Mr.. Tafts
objection to this limitation can hardly be
characterized as statesmanike: lie says:
"A corporation controlling 40 or 80 per
cent of the product may. by well known
methods, frequently effect monopoly
and stamp out competition in part of
country as completely as II II controlled
60 or 20 per cent thereof.
Why then does he not propose lower
limit? If the control of As per cent may
constitute a monopoly, why does he not
suggest that as a maximum? 1t cannot
be because of any disinclination to amend
his platform, for he has already made
of the conventions platform by
promiscuous amendments.
y And to what well known" meth \
J. DDS does he refer? To the undersell- 4
y ing of competitors in one section 4
J. while the price is maintained else \
! where? And yet this is the very 4
= thing we propose TO remedy, but he =
! proceeds to denounce our remedy as 4
b absurd and socialistic. The trouble y
! with Secretary Taft is that he spends
J. so much time trying TO discover ex-
/ cuses for inaction in trust matters 4
l. that he has none left for the consider y
l. alton of effective remedies. He =
J. spends more time uttering warnings y
/ against remedies proposed than he +
/ does in pointing out the evils TO be
/ renedied or in suggesting remedies. y
h He saws:
..The combination of capital In large
ulants TO manufacture goods with the
greatest economy is just as necessary as
the assembling of the parts of machine
10 the economical and more rapid man.
ufacture of what in old times was made by
hand"
Mr.. Taft Confused.
And he adds that:
's'The government should not interfere
ara w .ata