Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1912-09-05

to the trusts themselves.
MAKE RELIEVE srRANGLE.
THE ANTITRUST law by itself can never
In any shape or way solve the problem
Of dealing with the trusts. As at present
enforced. and stu more as II would be
enforced n the recommendations OF the
Stanley committee were enacted into
law. II n and would remain n mere
policy Of make believe strangle, a policy
nominaily against the interests of the
huge, swollen trusts. but really in their
favor, and a menace only to honest
business men with business Of moderate
size.
TT IL curious to see how closely the
old parties stand together IN this matter,
how eagerly the representatives Of the
big trusts and Of their tools and allies
In the business world rally to the help
OF either as against the progressives.
The recent action OF Mr.. Penrose and
Mr.. Archbold Is striking Illustration
or the clearness with which the Standard
OIL trust and Its creatures In politics see
that their real foes, the foes whom they
hate and dread, are to be found only In
the Progressive party; and against these
foes they will do everything In their
power. In the interest Of either or both
Of the old parties. with the old. corrupt
machine organizations.
THE promises of the democratic and
republican platforms can be tested by
the performances Of the representatives
Of the two parties at the present time
for instance. In the ADMINISTRATORS ac-
ceptance as satisfactory Of the
result VI the suit against the
Standard Oh and tobacco trusts and by
the Stanley committees report on the
proper method of dealing with these
trusts. The only result Of the suits
against the oil and tobacco trusts
was greatly 70 increase the value
Of the holdings Of the big fl
nanciers, who were nominally sup.
posed to be punished, while small COM
petitors were put In a worse position
than before. and the cost Of living was
raised to the public generally. as the
products were increased in prices.
RECOMMENDATIONS FUTILE.
The recommendations of the Stanley
committee do not deserve to be treated
seriously. II adopted they would proba-
bly, accomplish nothing whatever. being
mere sound and fury; but II they did
| accomplish anything whatever Il would
be partial paralysis of production, which
| would inevitably raise the cost Of living
Ii suooessful they would merely represen,
blow at abundance. a method Of secur.
Ing soaScity; and scarcity means high
prices. AS for the recommenda ton Of the
Stanley committee that the size of a cor.
poration be limited. its worth can be test.
ed by what the department Of Justice Sc.
| cured when the splitting up Of the Stand.
| ard OH corporation into some 30 compan.
! les was accomplished by the decree of the
| lower court. The actual effect OF this de-
cree shows with absolute clearness wha'
| would be the effect OF the Stanley com
mittee's recommendations If they wer,
ever tried in practice. Nominally the cor
porations would remain small: really the.
would all be together in the same bis
| ombination. Nothing would have beer
| gained in the way Of controlling thu
trusts. and much would have been los
from the standpoint OF the consumer.
THE democratic and republican plat
forms uphold the antitrust law as II
Itself sufficient panacea and the one 4
backed by the action of the department
of justice and the other by the actor
OF the Stanley committee of the Hous
of Representatives. The big trusts cordial
lly approve Of both platforms; and the.
approve of the department of justic
and the Stanley committee. They draw
no sharp line between the democrati
and the republican platforms In this mat
ter; they draw no sharp line between tn
action Of the department of justice a
present and the action proposed by tn
Stanley committee.
MORE TRUST WITH DEMOCRATS.
They are entirely satisfied with bot
the democratic and republican platform.
They are entirely satisfied with tn
lStanley committee and with the preser
department of Justice. Some Of them ar
supporting the republican candidate; NOR
Of them are supporting the democrat
candidate; for every big financial magma,
connected with a crooked trust know
that neither the democrats nor the n
publcans menace him or his interests
the slightest degree and that they ha,
nothing to fear except from the Progre
. sive party.
The New York Times Of August 10
an interview attributed to a prominer
citizen who has repudiated 1t. critic'se
and denounced Jane Adams for nomina
Ing me. and also criticised the Progressi'
party for permitting women to be in II
progressive convention. 1t attacked Mi
Addams's conduct as spectacular and
very bad taste. And also criticised me ,
being spectacular because I had the ba
taste to publicdly compliment her on n
action and thank her
MY only reference to Miss Adams WI
contained in the following sentence:
wish to tell those who proposed and Sc
onded my nomination that appreciate
/ the full the significance Of having sue
r men and such woman put me In nomin
ton 1t will be noticed that in this Sc
h tence I did not even mention Miss A
E damss name, and II President Eliot req
: ~ considers this allusion to Miss Addar
e as being spectacular and in bad taste
v should feel a mild curiosity to know ju
= what he would regard as non-spectacul
l. and in good taste
& NO RIGHT TO SLUR EITHER.
" ut would not be worth while to ri
any heed to this article in itself. but
>. illustrates an attitude OF mind SUFFICIENT
y common to deserve consideration. Amo
the other sentences In the article we
" the following: Women have no prOI
- share in political convention. We re
=, women to bear children and attend
=, their home. The men ought to be NJ
:. to regulate their own politics and mi
=. all needs without direct assistance OF
- women
"Of course 1t Is entirely right to 8