The Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1???-1928, 1908-07-29


II IS necessary, therefore. to devise
some means Tor classifying and msur'
ing Federal supervision of such cor,
porations as have the power an |
temptatiou TO fleet restraints OF In.
terstate trade and monopoIes Suc1
corporations constitute very small
nercpntage of all engaged In interstate
business
| Roosevet's Proposed Classification.
With such classification in view,
Nh Roosevelt recommended az
ameudement To the antitrust law.
known as the Hepburn bill, which pro
yided for voluntary classification, and
created a strong motive therefor by
granting immunity from prosecution
for reasonable restraints of interstate
trade TO all corporations which would
register and submit themselves to the
publicity regulations of the Depart
maut of Commerce and Labor
Democratic Proposed Classification.
The Democratic platform suggests n
requirement that corporations in inte,.
state trade having control of - per
cent Of the products in which they
deal shall take out a Federal license.
This classification would probably in
ylude a great many small corporations
engaged in the manufacture of special
articles. or commodities whose total
value is SO inconsderable that they
are not really within the purylew OF
real evil If the antitrust law.
II is not now necessary, however. TO
discuss the relative merit of such
propositions. but it is enough merely
to affirm the necessity for some meth
cd by which greater executive super.
vision can be given to the Federal
Government over those businesses in
which there is a temptation to yiola-
lions Of the antitrust law.
Antitrust Law.
The possible operation OF the anti
trust law under existing rulings of
The Supreme Court has given rise t.
suggestions for its necessary amend.
ment TO prevent It's application to
eases which il is believed were never
i'm the contemplation of the trainers OF
the statute Take two Instances A
merchant or manufacturer engaged in
legitimate business that covers Ger
tain states wishes to sell his business
and his good will and so in the terms
OF the sale 0biieates himself to the
purchaser not to go into the same
business in those states Such a re-.
straint of trade. has always been en-
forced at common law. Again, the
combine and enter upon a peaceable
and lawful strike to secure better
wages. Al common law this was not a
restraint Cf trade or commerce or a
violation of the rights of the company
or of the public Neither case ought TO
be- made a violation of the antitrust
law Ny own impression is that the
supreme Court would hold that Meth
r Of these instances are within it's
inhibition, but, If they are to be 50
Regarded. general legislation amend
ing the la~ is necessary.
democratic Plank to Limit corpor-
atoms.
The suggestion Of the Democratic
platform hat trusts be ended by for
idding corporations to hold more
thau 30 per cent Of the plant in any
line OF manufacture is made without
regard to the possibility of enforce
meut or the real evil in trusts A cor
poratiuu controlling IS or 50 per cent
of the products may by we'll known
methods frequently effect monopoly
and stamp out competition in part OF
the country as completely as if it con
trollcd CD or 10 per cent thereof
Compulsory Sale of Products.
The proposal Ia compel every cor
poration, to sell its commodities at the
same price the country over, allowing
for transportation, is utterly imprac
tlcable. If it can be shown that in or
der TO drive out competition, a corpor
alton owning a large part of the plant
producing an article is selling in one
part Of the country, where it has com
lpctitors. at a low and unprotitabl,
price and in another part of the coun
! try, where il has none at an eXorbi
| tant price. this is evidence that it i!
attempting an unlawful monopoly, an,
| iustifies conviction under the anti
trust law but the proposal to super
wise the business of corporations il
Isuch a way as to fix the price of com
modities and compel the sale at sucl
prices is as absurd and sociaIistic ;
plank as was ever inserted in a Dem
ocratic political platform
| Republican and Democratic Policies
The chief difference between tbs
! Republican and the Democratic plat
forms is the difference which has here
tofore been seen between the policic
lof Mr. Roosevelt and those which
have been advocated by the Demo
cratic candidate. Mr.. Bryan. NJ
Rooseyelrs policies have been pre-
gressiye and reguative; Mr.. Bryan
destructive Mr. Roosevelt has favored
regulation Of business in which evil
have grown up so as to stamp out tn
ievils and permit the business to con
H.