:tp-, "iTr."WMrs
yqyjfv? wvc'v r1ww'J4t?jfjri,?,TP''r',l't'?f"r fi--"
"'I5H3P "! ' ""-'
".'W'"
"
The Commoner
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
VOL. 7. No. 25.
Lincoln, Nebraska, July 5, 1907.
Whole Number 337.
CONTENTS
TRUSTS AND THEIR TREATMENT
HARRIMAN ON LAND AND SEA
POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPREADS
"GREEKS BEARING GIFTS"
ANOTHER ORATOR
A RAILROAD VIEW
WINNING BY JUSTICE
FAR REACHING CORPORATE INFLUENCE
FIGHT FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMIN
ATION "WHAT IS A DEMOCRAT?"
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE
WASHINGTON LETTER
PARAGRAPHIC PUNCHES
COMMENT ON CURRENT TOPICS
HOME DEPARTMENT
- WHETHER COMMON OR NOT
NEWS OF THE WEEK
HARRIMAN ON SEA AND LAND
' E. H. Harriman disobeyed orders on the
Harvard-Yale race course, and met With, a great
surprise. . A naval lieutenant whose duty it was
to keep the course clear and enforce orders
had the. extreme impudence to actually, arrest
Mr,. Harriman just the' same as any other cdnxr.
inori offender might hav.e. been arrested. iAnd
when .Mr. Harriman shook tila flngerjajy3hair
man Schweppe of the jegatta committee arid
shouted, "Young man, I'll see you later," the
people within earshot merely laughed. Lieuten
ant Bulmer, the officer who arrested Mr. Har
riman, took Ills prisoner aboard the revenue
cutter Gresham and kept him there until after
the race was over. Then he was permitted to
go on his own recognizance, but the Harriman
motor boat was tied up at the navy yard.
Mr. Harriman is not used to that sort of
thing. He is 'accustomed to having his own
way, in court and out. On land no cne in au
thority thought of having him arrested for his
arrogant violations of the law, but on water it
was different. Perhaps it would be a good idea
to send all of our judicial and executive officials
to sea for a while in order that they may learn
how to enforce laws and rules, and while they
are learning let the naval officers come on shore
and take the judicial and executive places for
a while. Until they learned the methods of
distinguishing between the people of high and
low financial degree we might have pretty fairly
good enforcement of the laws'.
oooo
POPULAR GOVERNMENT SPREADS
The House df Commons by a vote of 432
to-147 adopted Premier Campbell-Bannerman's
resolution declaring tliat the House of Lords
should be shorn of its veto power. This is a
step toward popular government a part of the
world-wide movement which has for its object
the bringing of government nearer to the people.
.The House of Lords will oppose the resolu
tion, of course, but if it is made an issue and
carries at the polls the premier can doubtless
secure the appointment of enough life peers to
give the government a majority and thus reduce
the hereditary body to the capacity of an
advisor.
The king of England is a mere figure head;
his duties are social and diplomatic. "While he
has a veto power he would not dare to exercise
it. The House of Lords is the stronghold of
the aristocracy; its members own two-thirds
of the farm land of England and they block
reform legislation. The struggle between the
aristocracy and the democracy was bound to
come and' Americans will welcome this new evi
dence that the whole earth is some day to enjoy
the blessings of a "government of the people,
Jjy the people and for the people."
. c
is- -3HHHO W , . ; ; ,;:
.&' &&. - : &3WWMv '? l":'':,'H&wm
..-spawiiW 7?Wr - . ,ii-rv -.-tbmmwm
:
c2Mt.-. .
?Xhir . mOT
r-se.n-f " ' jui-
xawfjgW
"Go 'way! You'll scare the fish!"
TRUSTS AND THEIR TREATMENT
-Senator Beveridge's article in the May
Reader is not satisfactory, and yet, by his-failure
to meet the situation, he vindicates the con
tention of those who believe that there can be
no effective remedy for the trust that does not
strike at the principle of private monopoly. In
the course of his article the senator giyes'splen
did play to his rhetorical ability, exhibits a
wide acquaintance with industrial corporations,
and furnishes evidence of his own sincere inter
est in the public welfare, but he concludes, as
he began, with a confused idea of the trust prob
lem and an almost hopeless view of the future.
A considerable part of his article has no special
connection with the subject, and he employs
more words in exaggerating the blessings
brought by the trusts that in an enumeration
of the evils to be remedied. His references to
his early farm life awaken a sympathetic inter
est in-my own breast, for I can recall a similar
experience with one of tho early self-binder's,
and he does not go beyond me in appreciating
the advantages which Improved machinery has
brought to the farmer, to the tradesman and
to the public generally;' but improved machin
ery has no necessary connection with the trust
question. To protect the people against private
monopolies, it is not necessary to go back from
the modern harvester to the cradle or the sickle;
it is not necessary to abandon the moldboard
plow and return to the crooked stick; nor is it
necessary to prohibit the use of steam, abolish
the railroad, and rely upon the ox-team for
transportation. The principle of private mon
opoly is not a new one. It was employed long
before steam was utilized or the electric current
was imprisoned In the copper wire. Josephus
tells how one known o history as John of Gis
chala secured a monopoly in olive oil some
seventeen centuries ago and sold the oil for
ten times what it cost him. They had no rail
roads then, but tho aforesaid John, carrying
the oil in two goat-skins thrown across the back
of a donkey, was able to corner tho market.
There is no evidence that ho built up his trade
by the securing of rebates, or that he used his
surplus funds in the endowment of colleges,
but ho employed the same principle that has
been employed for the injury of society by other
Johns engaged in the oil business and by other
monopolists engaged in the sale of other neces
saries of life.
At various times in the history of other
nations, we have found tho private monopoly
appearing, always as an odious institution and
always as an outlaw, if tho rulers gave any heed
to the welfare of their subjects.
Senator Beveridge does not seem to catch
the distinction between an industry carried on
on a large scale and a monopoly. Those who op
pose private monopolies have no desire to inter
fere with production on a largo scale. On-tho
contrary, they desire to encourage Inventive
genius and economy in production, but they
deny, first, that a monopoly is an economic de
velopment, and, second, that its benefits aro
equal to the evils which grow out of it. It is
often assumed that because a mill can produce
a million yards of cloth at a lower price per
yard thaa it could produce one thousand yards,
therefore there would be greater economy in
producing all the cloth in one factory or under
one management. There are three fallacies
hidden In this assumption. First,, this assump
tion overlooks the fact that when production is
oh so large a scale that the operative is re
moved many degrees from the superintendent,
the leak at each transfer of authority finally.
overcomesvthe economy in production. So long
as tho superintendent can be closely identified
1
yjtvjisfitjSbi
jafimujartg
i&tVi-iiilXj'ldbbLtU
kMiSL'
Ijtetofo'A