The Washington herald., 1911-09-29
TAFT DISCUSSES
TRUSTS IN IOWA
Continued from rag. One.

Continued from PaE. One.
the present majority in the lower House
are presumably against the increase OF
the Federal function with respect to cor
porations.
BE that as It may. the business com.
munity now knows, or ought to know
where 1t stands. The court declines tc
hold that competition is impossible un.
der modern business conditions. but II
insists that It must be given full oppor.
tunity for operation, and that any com.
. bined effort affecting interstate trade
looking to its suppression is contrary
law. In other words, business must
sce the necessity Of throwing away the
,utch OF combination against competi.
pn in its further progress. When this
1le is recognized, when the corporations
hat have offended the law are disinte.
GRATED sufficiently to enable competition
no have full play, then there is no rea-
son why business should not go on un-
hampered.
The Law VIII Be Enforced.
Criticism has been uttered in no meas
ured tone against the activity Of the De
partment of Justice in the institution oi
prosecutions and bills of equity under
the antitrust law, on the ground that il
Is hurting business. II is the sworn duty
of the executive to enforce the law, and
as long as such combinations exist and
are known to exist to the law officers oi
the government in any way they would
be lacking in their duty II they did not
prosecute them. They are under my or
ders to treat the prosecution of trusts
like the bringing of any other suitsiwhich
are within the scope and duty of the De-
partment of Justice, and 1 must decline
10 admit that there is any discretion
which would enable the Attorney General
and his assistants to stay the hand OF
the government in respect of such vio-
lations of law. I do not think 1t need be
long continued, because I believe that the
business community itself is rapidly TAX
ing in the effect of the decisions of the
Supreme Court, and that We may expect
revolution of feeling on the attitude
of business men toward this step.
I have heard the severest criticism
from some men engaged in business OF
the antitrust law. 1t is difficult for me
to argue with them, because 1 don't un-
derstand how their position can be sup
ported in the slightest. They seem to
think there ought to be some measure
making legal the control of competition
and limited monopoly, some statute en-
acted which shall establish a line be-
tween those monOpolies that arc reason
able and those that are nOt-thoSe that
are benevolent and those that are uncon
scionable. No such line is possible. and
the Supreme Court has expressly so de-
cided. Mourning over a condition which
is inevitable is useless, and until they
realize that their views in this regard
must be radically changed their COM
plants must fall upon deaf ears.
state Socialism Would Follow.
Il have seen arguments based upon
the attitude of foreign governments to-
ward great enterprises in which it is
pointed out that they have encouraged,
fondled. and protected combinations Of
this character That is true. There is
L tendency among some foreign govern
r1ents to encourage what they call trusts,
to take part themselves in the manage
nlent OF the trusts, to fix prices, and to
depend upon governmental control TO Sc
cure their reasonable conduct; but such
system with us is absolutely impos-
sibIe, and il might as we'll be understood.
The countries TO which reference is made
ere veering toward State socialism. This,
indeed if competition is to- disappear,
Is the logical escape from the evil Of
Tivate mOnOpOlies, because II private
companies are to be allowed to manage
everything and fix prices, then there
is every reason why the control thus ex-
ercised by them should be transferred
from them to the government, and this
is state socialism,
FavOrS Less Protection.
While asserting that the business of
the country rests upon the protective
tariff basis. the President said that a
change from a protective tariff to a
tariff for revenue only would lead to
business depression and to temporary
business disaster. But here are many,
and I am among those" he added, who
believe that protection in the past has
been too high, and that it is possible to
lower the tariff so as not to interfere
with business, give a living rate of pro-
lection to existing enterprise, and yet
prevent excessive prices growing out 0f
excessive rates.
In this connection Mr.. Taft referred
to the tariff bureaus or commissions of
Germany, Austria, and France, which
arrange for the gradual change in the
ariff as business conditions require, and
this gave him an opportunity to assert
that the tariff bureaus in this country
would enable Congress to act with care
toward the existing industries of the
Need for New Monetary system.
Mr.. Taft charterized our present bank
ing and currency system as very lame"
He stated present conditions and the pro-
posed remedy as follows:
The independent action of each bank
when money grows tight, in reaching out
Tor cash and increasing its reserve, ac-
,entuates the original cause for the con-
traction of the currency and doubles its
force. The control by each one of the
banks is a control by none of them. and
We find a money famine growing, by the
-ery fact of its existence, more and more
pressing and panic-producing.
There ought to be some central au-
.hority that could take over the quick
,ssets of the banks in the form of bust
ness paper and issue bank notes on the
'aith of 1t to meet the exigency arising