Bisbee daily review., 1908-08-26

" with the leSSenlng OF eXt0rIiOn OF
with the dissolution of some of the
trusts.
Because the private monopoly is in
! defensible and intolerable, the Dem
ocratic party favors its determination.
| It pledges itself to the vigorous en-
forcement of the criminal law against
| trust magnates and officials. IL is
impossible for the Republican party
to enforce the present criminal law
! against trust officials; these officials
are intimately connected with the Re
publican party in the present cam
paign. Take, for instance, the chair
man of the Republican speakers com
mittee, Mr.. Dupont, of Delaware. He
is the defendant in a suit which the
government brought and is now pros
ecuting. Mr. Dupont is charged with
violation of the antitrust law. Why
should he be put on the executive
committee and thea be given control
of the speaking part of the campaign?
If you talk to a Republican leader
about penitentiaTy punishment fot
offenders, he favorS finiEg the corpor-
alton on the ground that l. is impos-
sible to convict individuals, but when
you urge fines you are told that fines
are unjust to innocent stockholders.
We favor both fine and Imprisonment,
but we think it is better to prevent
monopolies than TO first authorize
them 10 prey upon the public and then
try to punish them for doing so. Mr..
Taft favors control OF trusts instead
of determination, but after years OF
experience the people have learned
that the trusts control the govern
ment.
Our platform does not stop with
the enforcement of the law; it de-
mands the enactment of such addition
al legislation as may be necessary TO
make it impossible for a private mo-
nopGly to exist in the United States.
The Democratic party does not
content 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 cor
porations. No one can object TO this
remedy unless he is in sympathy with
trusts, rather than with the people
who are victimized by the trusts.
There is no easier way of sitting
competition than to make one board
competing corporations. II is not
necessary for corporations to enter in
to an agreement for the restraint of
trade if the corporations can, without
violating the law, reach the same end
by electiug the same directors.
A trust can best be defined as
corporation which controls so large
a 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 is the proportion con
trolIed determines the power of the
trust for harm, it has seemed best
TO use pTOpOrtiOnate control as the
basis of this plan, and twenty-five per
cent has been fixed arbitrarily as the
proportion at which the line should
be drawn. 4 corporation which con
trois less than twenty-five per cent of
the product in which it deals, may.
in extraordinary cases, exert a percep-
tible influence in controlling the price
of the product and the terms of sale,
but as a rule a corporation must con
troll more than that percentage of the
total product before it can exert a
hurtful influence on trade. Under this
plan, the small corporations are left
entirely free and UnhampeTed. This
is not a discrimination against the
larger corporations, but a recognition
of the fact that rules are necessary
in the case of corporations controlling
large percentage of the product
which are not encessary in the case
of smaller corporations. Probably
not one per cent of the corporations
engaged in interstate commerce would
be required to take out a license un-
der this plan-possibly not one-half
of one per cent-and yet what a prU
| lection the remaining ninety-nine 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 corpora
| tions licensed. 1t would simply bElps
them under the eye of the federal
government and compel them to deal
with the public in such a way as to
afford the public the protection nee
essaTy. One Of the restrictions sug-
gested is that such licensed corpora
tions be compelled to sell to all pur-
chasers in all parts of the country
on the same terms, after making due
allowance foT&Ahe cost of transports
ton. Mr. Taft attacks this restric-
tion as utterly impracticable" He
says: IF II can be shown that in or
der to drive out competition. corpor-
alton owning large part Of the plant
producing an article in selling in one
part of the country. where it has com
petitors. at low and Improbable
| price, and In another part of the coun-
Itry, where it has none, at an exorbi-
tant price, this is evidence that it is
attempting an unlawful monopoly. and
!, justifies conviction under the anti
( trust law"
/ If such an act is now unlawful
Why is he so frightened at a plan
which gives to the small competitor
this very proteetion2 The trouble
with the present law is that 1t does
not restrain the evils at which 1t Is
aimed The plan proposed in the
Democratic platform brings the cor
poration under the surveillance of the
government when it has reached the
danger point. and thereafter subjects
| It 20 federal scrutiny. The present
ilaw simply prohibits it in an indefi-
mite sort of way. and then leaves the
officers Of the law TO scour the coun-
TRY and hunt up violations Of the laws
provisions.
No one proposes to interfere with