The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1914-07-02

vision of the tariff rates, schedule by
schedule, treating each case on an in
telligent consideration of its merits,
divorced from favoritism and the fos-
tering of special interests.
Let US turn now to the progressive
antitrust program. We believe in
cooperation among business men,
among farmers and among wage
workers. Our program is based on
the fundamental proposition that the
State should regard private monopo.
listic power as contrary to public wei.
fare, but that it should never attack
a particular business organization
merely because of it's size. In many
lines of industry the unit of social
and economic efficiency in our time
is large unit. What we want is a
business machinery strong and eff
Gent enough to do our business work,
to supply well and cheaply the daily
needs of 100000 people. We want
that machinery run honestly, fairly
and without monopoly. In short, we
want business power ample to serve
us, and we do not want that power
abused. We want the control of cor
porations to be exercised effectively
and promptly, so as to get results We
should end once and for all the at
tempt to regulate business by SER
les of lawsuits. We wish to put
stop to the misdeeds of business
men who do wrong. We wish also to
put stop to the marrying and perse-
cution of honest business men who do
right.
The Progressives therefore advo-
cate the creation of a strong Inter-
state Trade Commission and would
give such Commission, primarily,
three powers:
First, the power of investigation.
The Commission should be able to as
certain on complaint or on its own
motion, whether monopoly in fact
exists, and If it does exist, the basis
of its monopoistic power.
Second, the power directly to pro-
hibit all unfair trade practices within
its jurisdiction. This power would
enable the Commission to stop all
monopolIes based on unfair and op-
pressive trade practices. Whenever
is based on such practices,
what is needed is not the right to rec
ommend that suits be brought by the
Attorney-GeneraI, or by anyone else.
What is needed is the direct power in
the Commission itself to stop the
wrong.
Third, the power to end the exclu.
sive control Of a factor necessary to
production by an order adapted to the
of the particular case.
The order may involve changes in or
ganization, in management, or in the
conduct of the business. Where ex-
elusive possession of a natural re-
source is the basis of the monopoly,
it may be necessary to subject it's pos
session to the obligation of public
service, that is, the obligation to sell
to others a reasonable amount at
reasonable rates.
Our constructive program of anti
trust legislation has no quarrel with
arge business organizations as SUCH
On the contrary We recognize that
business efficiency in production can
be attained only through business or
ganization. But we demand that the |
government be clothed with all the |
necessary power to crush monopoly
with all its attendant owls
Contrasted with this program we
lave the Democratic antitrust pro-
gram now under discussion in the |
Senate of the United States. That |
program proves the inadequacy of the |
Democratic Party for the present and |
he future Of the Nation. 1t is, and
always will be, the States Rights
Party, the Party opposed to strong
federal action, the "Party-afraid-of-
Power"
We cannot control our great Ma
ional businesses without power, Ma
ional power. But the Democrats dare
lot use power themselves, nor let any
me else have it. Their trust pro-
GILL; 10 ~ LOduJy Is maui III
lie by this fear Their official admin
stration bills propose a weak Federal
'rade Commission, with no power ex-
ept to investigate and report. They
ear to give the government the
trength to cope with corporate abus-
s. They fear to give the Commits
ion power to prevent unfair trade
ractlces. Indeed, their measure
would hardly give the Commission
over really to investigate, much less
o destroy by proper administrative
rder monopolies based on the exclu-
i've possession of a factor essential
D production. To the powers of in
and recommendation which
he bill proposes to give to the Com
Mission, so far as they go, we have
o objection. 1t is the inadequacy of
ne Commissions power to destroy
which we condemn.
But the Clayton Bill goes hopeless
, wrong in that it forbids specifi-
ally any combination, or agreement
| interstate commerce, between any
vo or more corporations, firms or
ven individuals, which in any way
'ssens or restricts the competition
etween them. This is the hub of
leir whole position. They propose
} force every man to compete with
very other man. They hold that two
rmers selling milk across a State
ne cannot cooperate; and that two
en- doing any business across a State
ne cannot form a partnership or a
They insist that there
ust be no big business power, con-
power, or large enterprise
lyWhere, and that our business must