The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-08-25
BRYAN ON TRUSTS.
Continued from Page one.)

NSOhtAhoco AAOAh q SO
necessary to make 1t impossible for a
private monopoly to exist in the Oniteu
State. Among the additional remeoies'
we specify three: First. law prevent
ing a duplication of directors among
competing corporations; second, a IL.
cense system which Will, wthou.
abridging the right of each state 10
create corporations. or It's rlgnt 20 ies
ulate as it will foreign corporations
doing business within its limits. make II
necessary for a manufacturing or trad
ing corporation engaged IN lnterseate
commerce to take out federal Incense
before IL shall be permitted to control
&c much as % per cent of the product
In which ii deals, the license 70 protecc
the public from watered stock ana 10
prohibit the control by such corpoIa
ton of more than so per cent OF tns
total amount of any product cohsui ~ =,
an the United States; and, third. law
compelling such licensed corporatloliss
10 sell to all purchasers in all parts OF
the country on the same terms aller
making due allowance for cost OF Trans
portation." ,. .,
the partys position. There is no qulp-
bling, no evasion. no ambiguity "A
private monopoly is indefensible and
intolerable. 1t is bad-bad in prln-
ciple, and bad in practice NO
analogy can be offered for 1t. and no
people should endure it. Our party,
nosition is entirely In harmony with
The position of Jefferson. with a
knowledge of human nature winch
few men have equalled and none sur
passed and with extraordinary 1ore
light. he expressed unaIterable opposl-
tion to every form of private
monopoly. The student of history VIII
hnd that upon this subject. as upon
other subjects of government. the
great founder of the Democratic party
took his position upon the side or the
whole people and against those VINO
seek TO make a private use Of govern
ment or strive to secure special prlNl-
leges at the expense of the pubic.
One Democrat Remedy.
have. in discussing the tariff ques-
tion. presented one OF our remedles'
namely. the removal of the tariff from
imports which compete with trust
made goods. This, we believe, would
greatly lessen the extortion pracuced
by the trusts and bring about the dis |
solution of many monopolistic COM
bines But we are not satisfied merely
with the lessening of extortion or with |
the dissolution of some of the trusts.
Because the private monopoly is in |
defensible and intolerable. the Demo-
cratic party favors its determination |
II pledges itself to the vigorous en-
forcement of the criminal law against |
trust magnates and officials. IL is I'M
possible for the Republican party 10
enforce the present criminal law I,
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 prose-
cutting. Mr.. Dupont is charged with
violation of the antitrust law Why
should he be put on the executive
committee and then be given control
Of the speaking part of the campaign?
II you talk to a Republican leader
about penitentiary punishment Tor
offenders, he favors fining the cor
poration on the ground that it is i'm
possible to convict individuals, but
when you urge fines you are told that
fines are unjust to innocent stock
holders. We favor both fine and i'm
but we think it is better
10 prevent monopolies than to first
authorize them to prey upon the pub
lie and then try to punish them for do
ing so. Mr.. Taft favors control OF
trusts instead of determination. but
after years of experience the people
the government.
Our platform does not stop with
the enforcement of the law: it de-
mands the enactment of such
additional legislation as may De neceS-
sary to make il impossible for pri
waite monopoly to exist in the United
States.
The Democratic party does not con-
tent 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
the trusts, rather than with the peo-
pie who are victimized by the trusts.
There is no easier way of sitting
competition than to make one board
of directors serve for a number of
corporations. 1t is not
necessary for corporations to enter
into an agreement for the restraint of
trade if the corporations can, with
out violating the law. reach the same
end by electing the same directors.
The Second Remedy.
The second remedy is one upon
which desire to dwell at some length.