The morning journal-courier., 1908-07-29
Difference Between Republican and Democratic Policies and Plat forms: Former Progressive and RcgulaHyc: Latter Radical
 and DcstructIyc

''N"'''''' sh't'' 'oh''N'
 and Destructive.
 The chief difference between the re- publican and the democratic plat forms Is the difference which has here tofore been seen between the policies of Mir. Roosevelt and those which have been advocated by the demo- cratic candidate, Mir Bryan Mir. Roosevelts policies have been pro- gressive and regulative; Mir Bryan's destructive. Mir Roosevelt has favor ed regulation of the business in which evils have grown up so as to stamp out the evils and permit the business to continue. The tendency of Mir. Bryan's proposals have generally been destructive of the business with re- spect to which hc Is demanding re- form Mir. Roosevelt would compel the trusts to conduct their business in q lawful manner and secure the hen- efts of their operation and the main tenance of the prosperity of the coun try of which they are an important part, while Mir Bryan would extirpate and destroy the entire business in or der to stamp out the evils which they have practiced
 Advantage of Combination of Capital 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 lvu ,,iJ tcn pt gf trI la, nII times was made by hand The gov ernment should not interfere with one | any more than the other. when such aggreGations of capital are legitimate and are properly controlled, for they are than the natural results of mod ern enterprise and are beneficial to the public. In the proper operation share with the manufacturer the ad vantage in economy of operation and | lower prices.
 What Is an Unlawful Trust? When, however. such combinations | are not based on any economic principle but are made merely for the purpose of controlling the market. to | maintain or raise prices, restrict out | put and drive out competitors. the | public derives no benefit and we have a monopoly. There must he some use by the company of the Comparatively great size of Its capital and plant and extent of it's output either to coeree per. sons to buy of if rather than of some competitor or to coerce those who would compete with II to give up their business. There must usually, in other words, be shown an element ot duress in the conduct of its business toward the customers in the trade and It's competitors before mere aggrega- ton of capital or plant becomes an unlawful monopoly. II is perfectly conceivable that in the interest of economy of production a great mum Der of plants may be legitimately as- semhled under the ownership of one corporation. It is important there fore, that such large aggregatons of capital and combination should be controlled so that the public may have the advantage of reasonable prices and that the avenues of enterprise may be kept open to the individual and the smaller corporation wishing tc engage in business
 Mere Aggregation of Capital Not q
 Violation of Antitrust Law.
 In a country like this, where, ir good times, there is an enormous float ing capital awaiting investment, the | period before which effective con, nc. tition, by construction of new plants can be introduced into any business Is comparatively short rarely exceed ing a year, and is usually even less | than that Existence of actual plant is not therefore, necessary to poten- tial competition. Many enterprises have been organized on the theory that mere aggregation of all, or nearly all, existing plants in line of manu. facture. without regard to economy of production, destroys competition