Weekly Watertown leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1908-1909, 1908-09-18
InfpraCfiCabIe Democratic PROPOSE
ton for Trust Control.
Convincing Exposition Of Fallacy Of
Bryan's Panacea for Solving
Problems of Modern
Business.
(From Gov. Hughes Youngstown
specify

pear and the complex problems Of mod
ern business are forgotten in the fas-
cination of the simple panacea. And
as the free coinage Of silver In the
ratio of 16 to ] was to destroy the
curse of gold, so the new found specific
OF equal perfection is to remove the
curse Of industrial oppression. The de-
luslon of 1908 is comparable only to
that of twelve years ago.
The first suggestion is that the law
should prevent a duplication of di-
rectors among competing corporations.
However advisable it may be to have
Independent directorates of competing
corporations, it would seem still more
important to have independent stock
holders, for a majority of the stock
holders of a corporation choose the di-
rectors. If a law were passed pre-
venting the duplication of directors 1t
would easily be evaded in the selection
of men who would represent the same
interests. The most ordinary exper-
fence shows that it is not necessary 10
serve on a board of directors in order
to control its proceedings. Whatever
the advantage Of such a law as is pro-
posed, it hardly rises to the dignity of
a remedy" or vindicates its title to
place in an imposing scheme of reform
outlined in a national platform.
But the more important proposal is
that any manufacturing or trading
corporation enga ged in interstate com
msrce shall be required to take out a
federal license before it shall be per-
rlitted to control as much as % per
cent of the product in which it deals"
A license is permission, and the object
of the remedy is not to regulate large
businesses, but to destroy trusts. Hence
the supposed efficiency of the plan is to
be found in the prohibition of the con-
troll by any such corporation "of more
than 30 per cent of the total amount of
any product consumed in the United
States" This is another delusion of
ratio.
1t might be interesting to inquire
what is the meaning of "any product
consumed in the United States" Does
it refer to a class of commodities?
And, if so, how shall the classes be de-
fined? Or does it refer to each sepa-
rate article of commerce? And, if so,
what account does this proposal take
of the skill and initiative of manufac-
turers who have built up a more or
less exclusive trade in particular ar
ticles, often protected by trademarks,
although in most active competition
with other articles designed for the
same general purpose and seeking the
same market? In desire to correct
the evils of business are we to place
an embargo upon honest endeavor
whose activities present none of the
abuses requiring remedies? And, if
not, what statutory definitions shall be
found to be adequate and just if we
lay down our prohibition in terms of
volume or ratio of business and not in
terms of right and wrong? If we
adopt Mr.. Bryans proposal, to what pc
riod of production is the prohibition
to apply? Is the excess for a day or
for month to be considered? Or is
the average production for a year to be
taken? And what system shall be de-
vised by which suitable Information
may be furnished in the nature of dam
ger signals along the routes of trade
so that the manufacturer may know
when he is about to exceed the pre-
scribed ratio? He may Justly be re-
quired to govern his own conduct, but
how shall he be apprised of the con-
duct of others upon which is to depend
his guilt or innocence?
The patent laws confer true
monopoly in the exclusive right to man.
ufacture and sell. Are these laws TO
be repealed because a private mOn-
opoly is indefensibIe and intolerable?"
Bryan's Crude Reasoning.
An example of Mr.. Bryan's reason
ing is found in his statement that
when a corporation controls 90 per
cent Of the total product it supplies
forty millions of people with that prod
uct." There are, of course, specialties
which have limited market and are
used by relatively small number of
the people of the United States. More
than 90 per cent, and indeed even as
much as 1o0 per cent of the trade in
such articles may be in the control
of particular corporation. This MAY.
in fact. be relatively a small corpora
ton. 1t may never have aspired to the
unsavory renown of a trust" But bv
prosecuting its particular line with
fidelity and meeting satisfactorily a
limited want: or by reason of some
secret processes or advantage of expert
ence. it may control the trade in a Civ
en- article of commerce. Or, suppose a
concern controls the whole trade in
some useful byproduct which it has
found it advantageous to make, is the
trade to be prohibited?
The Democratic platform makes no