Omaha daily bee., 1916-09-04
HUGHES CHEERED
FOR 81 MINUTES
Republican Nominee in Speech
at St. Louis Attacks
Wilson Policies.
CITES NEW YORK RECORD

st. Louis, No, Sept. 3.-Charles E,
Hughes faced an audience in the
Coliseum last night that cheered
him twenty-one minutes, and in his
talk he referred repeatedly to points
made by President Wilson in his ac-
ceptance speech. 81 protest" Mr..
Hughes said, against the extravagant
claim that the antitrust act was clar-
flied by definition by our opponents.
They folded themselves up in vague
phrase and presented that as the So
lution.t
Mr.. Hughes said that from the
claims of our opponents with respect
to child labor legislation, you would
suppose they had discovered chill
dren.
Il am for the protection Of chill
dren," he said. 81 was for it before
the present administration was heard
Of"
What Governor Said.
II want to read you what a COVER
ioi Vi a STATE said 70 a legislature
MWe years ago oo, said tne nominee.
your careful consideration the ipmort-
ant subject Of child labor laws for
the protection of children in securing
for them their rights through an
elementary education and in sur
rounding them with appropriate safe
guards, making an especial appeal to
human sentiment and that nothing
should be left undone to give them
full effect.
hat, l said in the state Of New
YORK nine years ago"
Mr.. Hughes referred 70 child labor
legislation, enacted during his term
as governor OF New York.
II think ! know something Of child
labor and the importance Of protect
ing it." he said. THE recent bill
passed in congress affects very
small humber of children in this
country There remains vast
amount of necessary work to be done
by our states before child labor shall
be. prohibited to degree which will
for ~ nro TINS n,po ~ asset. am
business MANS Rights.
The nominee declared that the bust
ness man had right to know what
he could and could not do.
Here again we are met with ex-
traordinary claims" he said. u sup
pose allusion is made to the federal
trade commission law. l have no
quarrel with the composition of the
trade commission law, but | cannot
accept the crude statement of sugges-
ton that the antitrust law should be
clarified by definition.
1t is said in the federal trade COM
mission act that unfair methods Of
competition in commerce are hereby
declared unlawful.
Now, what are unfair methods Of
competition? Naturally a man in -the
street would think about fraud. 1t
is not necessary to establish trade
commission to deal with fraud. Fraud
has been recognized by the common
law since its institution.
Not Th;nk;rv os r-.,a
n,,. y
~ my a.c NOT tninking 81 fraud.
ran eonpetition had different
law. Ii is time-honored phrase We
know what it means. In very sim
pie way OF statement it may be said
to nave relation to methods by which
one mans goods are palmed off as
the goods OF another man, through
deceptive statements in advertising
and the like.
Those things are described in the
law as unfair competition. Was this
law passed to reach them! OF course
not. Talk about clarifying the anti
trust act by definition. Why, there
is not business man in the country
who knows what that act means or
what ne should do or not do under.
it.
I complain of the extravagant
claims made with respect to the clari-
fication Of the law in the alleged in
terest OF business when nothing OF the
sort has been done and the act ex-
pressly states that nothing OF the
sort was attempted. You cannot mis-
lead the American people by claims
OF that description"
Nat M.a. Ga
os A1euS Sooo'