The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1908-09-30
Impracticabie Democratic PROPOSE
ton for Trust Control.
Convincing Exposition of Fellacy o.
Bryan's Panacea for Solving
Problems of Modern
Business.
(From Gov. Hughes Youngstown

selves journeying in land of dreams.
Again the magician of 1896 waves his
wand At a stroke difficulties disap-
pear and the complex problems of mod
ern business are forgotten in the fas-
cination of the simple panacea. And, |
as the free coinage Of silver in the I
ratio of 16 to / was to destroy the |
curse of gold, SO the new found specific
of equal perfection is to remove the /
curse Of industrial oppression. The de-
fusion of 1908 is comparable only to
that of twelve years ago.
The first suggestion is that the law
should prevent a duplication of di-
rectors among competing corporations.
However advisable 1t may be to have |
independent directorates of competing
corporations, it would seem still more
important to have independent stock
holders, for a majority of the stock
holders of a corporation choose the d.
rectors. If a law were passed pre-
venting the duplication of directors it
would easily be evaded in the selection
OF men who would represent the same
interests The most ordinary exper-
serve on a board of directors in order
to control it's proceedings. Whatever
the advantage of such law as Is pro-
posed, 1t hardly rises to the dignity OF
a remedy" or vindicates it's title to q
place in an imposing scheme of reform
outlined in national platform.
But the more important proposal is
that any manufacturing or trading
corpora ton engaged in interstate COM
merce shall be required to take out a
federal license before it shall be per-
mitted to control as much as % per
cent of the product In which it deals"
A license is permission, and the object
Of the remedy is not to regulate large
businesses, but to destroy trusts. Hence
the supposed efficiency of the plan is to
be found in the prohibition of the con-
troll by any such corporation "of more
than 30 per cent Of the total amount Of
any product consumed In the United
States" This is another delusion Of
ratio.
1t might be interesting to inquire
what is the meaning of ANY product
consumed in the United States" Does
1t refer to a class of commodities?
And, If so how shall the classes be de-
fined? Or does it refer to each sepa-
rate article of commerce? And, if SO,
what account does this proposal take
Of the skill and initiative of manufac-
turers who have built up a more or
less exclusive trade in particular ar
ticles, often protected by trademarks,
although in most active competition
with other articles designed for the
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, if
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
Rod 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-
CURED to govern his own conduct. but
how shall he be appraised of the con-
duct of others upon which is to depend
his guilt or innocence?
The patent laws confer a true
monopoly in the exclusive right to man
ufacture and sell. Are these laws TO
be repealed because a private mon
opoly is indefensible and intolera BILE p"
Bryan's Crude Reasoning.
Az example of Mr.. Bryan's reason
ing is found in his statement that