Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1908-09-09

AuoAt VI ludl l2W,i anu Tue ltopUDllCAn
party has been explaining year after year
why It was impossible to, enforce II, The
President has done something toward the
enforcement Of the law, but not nearly
enough, and the Republican leadeis have
thwarted him at every point. ~
The Republican platform says that e1,
perience has shown that the effectiveness
Of the antitrust law could be strength
ened by amendments which will give the
federal government greater supervision
and control over and greater publicityi as
to the management Of those interstate
commerce corporations which have the
power and opportunity to effect monopo-
lies That is all. No pointing out of
remedies no outlining Of a plan for more
effective legislation simply q general
statement that promises nothing in par
ticular. And Mr.. Taft's speech of ac-
ceptance is even weaker than the plat
form. He gives no evidence Of having
studied the question or Of compromising
the iniquities Of monopoly. YOU look
In vain In his notification speech for any
sign Of Indignation at what the trusts
have been doing or for evidence Of real In
their prosecution, He has, for several
years, been the intimate official companion
of the President, but he has caught none
OF the FIRE which the President manifested
In his message Of last January.
Favors Its Extermination.
Because private monopoly is indefensi-
1 BILE and intolerable, the Democratic party
i favors its determination. II pledges itself
to the vigorous enforcement of the Grim.
inal law against trust magnates and Off
clals. 1t is impossible for the Republican
party to enforce the present criminal law
against trust officials; these officials are
intimately connected with the Republican
party in the present campaign. Take, fol
Instance, the chairman of the speakers
committee, Mr.. Dupont Of Delaware. He
Is the defendant in suit which the gov.
eminent brought and is now prosecuting
Mr.. Dupont is charged with violation Of
the antitrust law Why should he bt
put on the executive committee and ther
be given control Of the speaking part Of
the campaign?
II you talk to a Republican leader
about penitentiary punishment for offend
ers, he favors 6ning the corporation on
4 t1lG STOuuu itudt u ID NpUSSIuiS AZ COh'
yict individuals, but when you urge fines
4 you are told that fines are unjust to in
nocent stockholders. We favor both fine
1 and imprisonment, but we think It il bet
4 ter to prevent monopolies than FIRST to
i authorize them to prey upon the public
i and then try to punish them for doing 30
4 Mr.. Taft fayors control Of trusts instead
4 Of determination, but after years. of ex-
perience the people have learned that the
4 trusts control the government.
Our platform does not stop with the en-.
forcement Of the law:fit demands the
enactment Of such additional legislation
q may be necessary to make 1t impossible
i for a private monopoly to exist In the
| United States. The Democratic party
does not content itself with a. definition
| Of the wrong or with a denunciation Of 1t.
| It proceeds to outline remedies. The first
Is a law preventing Z duplication of d.
rectors among competing corporations. No
one can object to this remedy unless be
10 In sympathy with the trusts, rather
than with the people who are victimlsed
i BY the trusts. There Is no easier way Of
sitting competition than to make one
board Of directors serve for number Of
competing corporations. 1t Is not neces.
sary for corporations to enter into an
agreement for the restraint of trade II the
corporations can. without violating the
law, reach the same end by electinx thu
same directors.
License systsn n Remedy.
Tho second remedy is one upon which, l
desire to dwell at some length. We be
lieve it to besa simple, complete and easily
enforced remedy. As stated In the plat.
form It is:
"a license system which will without
abridging the right of each State to ere
ate corporations, Or its right to regulate
Is 1t will foreign corporations, doing bust
ness within Its limits; make 1t necessary
for a manufacturing or trading corpora
ton engaged in interstate commerce te
4 take out federal license before it shall
be permitted to control as much as Is ne,
cent of the product in which 1t deals, thu
license to protect the public from watered
stock and to prohibit the control by suci
corporation Of more than so per cent
Of the total amount Of any product con
sumed In the United Statesy
II 1t Is conceded that Congress has til,
power to prevent the shipment of good,
from one State to another when. sucf
shipment is a part of a conspiracy agains,
trade and commerce, then the only cues
ton is as to the means to be employed tc
prevent such shipment. The licen9e sys
tenn presents m easy way OF regulating
such corporations as need federal reguIa,
tion. The law can prohibit the doing Of
] a thing and impose penalty for the yio.
lation Of the law, but experiences has
shown that 1t is very difficult to gather ur
evidence from all sections OF the United
States and prosecute great corporation;
20 difficult is 1t that although the Sher.
man antitrust law has been In fosnesfos
eighteen years, no trust magnate hai been
sent to the penitentiary for violating the
law, although in, few cases the court
has found corporations guilty Of viola,
ton of the law. In the enforcement Of
q penalty the government must seeE the
defendant by the use of the license sys-
tenn the corporation is compelled to seek
the government.
Would Not Prevent Growth.
The license, however. would not prevent
the growth of the corporations licensed
4 II would simply bring 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
necessary. One Of the restrictions sug.
gested is that such licensed corporations
be compelled to sell to all purchasers in
all parts of the country on the same
terms, after making due allowance for
cost of transportation. Mr.. Taft attacks
this restriction as utterly impracticable.' =
He says: If it can be shown that in
order to drive out competition a corpora.
ton owning a large part Of the plant
/ producing an article is selling in one part
Of the country, where 1t has competitors,
at low and improbable price. and in
another part of the country, where 1t has
none. at an exorbitant price, this Is evi,
dence that it 10 attempting an unlawful
monopoly and justifes conviction under
the antitrust law"
II such an act is now unlawful, why is
he 20 frightened at a plan which, gives
to the small competitor this very proec.
ton? The trouble with the present law
ID that 1t does not restrain the evils ~
y ~ T.