'.Jy--' mmxinw 'm.mvmmmimmmSgmmSm
t. r- f"H
i)
Commoner. - " ouumenueru.
4
THE TRUST QUESTION
ADDRESS DELIVERED BY MR. BRYAN AT INDIANAPOLIS, AUGUST 25
Mr " "
" -. -
Nowhere does the republican party show its indifference to
real reform more than in its treatment of the trust question. Here ;
is the republican platform:
''The republican party passed the Sherman anti-trust law over'
democratic opposition and enforced it after democratic dereliction. .
It has been a wholesome instrument for good in the hands of a wise
and fearless administration. But experience has shown that its
effectiveness can be strengthened and its real objects better attained
by such amendments as will give to' the federal government greater
supervision and control over, and secure greater publicity in, the
management of that class of corporations engaged in interstate
commerce, having power and opportunity to affect monopolies."
The Sherman anti-trust law was passed eighteen years ago; it
lias a criminal clause which provides a penitentiary punishment for
those who conspire together in restraint of trade. Ever since the
enactment of the law, with the exception of four years, the repub
lican party has controlled the executive department of the govern
ment, and, during two years of the four, it controlled the house of
representatives. Instead of democratic dereliction, the democratic
party has been urging, year after year, the strict enforcement of
fliat law, and the republican party has been explaining year after
year why it was impossible to enforce it. Instead of being a "whole
some instrument for good," it has been almost useless, so far as the
protection of the public is concerned, for the trusts have grown in
number, in strength, and in arrogance, at the very time when the
republican party was boasting of its enforcement of the law. The
steel trust was formed immediately after the election of 1900, and
a prominent republican saidin a speech soon, after, that it might
have prevented a republican' victory if it had been formed before
tho election. "
: Most of the trusts have- never been disturbed, and those that
have been prosecuted have not had their business seriously inter
rupted. The president has done something toward the enforcement
pt tho law, but not nearly enough, and the republican leaders have -thwarted
Jrim at every point. Finally the president became so,
exasperated that he sent to congress a message which shocked
republican leaders, by the fierceness of its denunciation of the
predatory interests. The very convention that spoke in its plat
form of the administration as "a wise and fearless one," was com
posed largely of the senators and members of congress who boldly
opposed every effort to free the people from the clutches of the
favor-seeking corporations.
The republican platform says that experience has shown that
the effectiveness of the anti-trust law could be strengthened by
amendments which will give the federal government greater super
vision and control over, and greater publicity as to, the manage
ment of those interstate commerce corporations which have the
- power and opportunity to affect monopolies. That is all. No point
ing out of remedies; no outlining of a plan for more effective legis
lation -simply a general statement that promises nothing in par
ticular. And Mr. Taft's speech of acceptance is even weaker
than the platform. He gives no evidence of having studied the
question or of comprehending the iniquities of a monopoly. You
look in vain in his notification speech for any sign of indignation
at what the trusts have been doing or for evidence of zeal in their
prosecution. He has, for several years, been the intimate official
companion of the president, but he has caught none of the fire
which the president manifested in his message of last January.
If, in the presence of an aroused people, and in the heat of a
campaign, the republican party contents itself with a colorless plat
form on this subject, what can we expect in the way of activity
when the exigencies of the campaign are passed? If, when Mr
Taft is appealing to the Roosevelt republicans, his discussion of the
subject is so lifeless and his manner so apologetic and apathetic,
what reason have we to expect either vigor in the enforcement
of the law or earnestness in the search for additional remedies?
a-a 5? Seh doliv"d aboilt a year aS announcing his can
didacy Mr Taft suggested that the present law be so amended as
to permit "reasonable" restraint of tmrln km, ",i " :i
would be as absurd as an amendment to the law against burglary
JK hnVaW ? aSeS ? TMoh more than two burglars entered
the house at one time or took more than half they found. In his
notification speech he suggests national incorporation-a remedy
which would make conditions worse because, without adding to
the power of congress to prevent monopolies, it would deprive the
states of the power to protect their own people aePnve
Now, let me contrast the democratic platform with the repub-
lican platform. Nowhere is the difference in the temper of the
parties more noticeable; nowhere is the difference in the method of
dealing with questions more manifest. Our platform says: .
"A private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable. We there
fore favor the vigorous enforcement of the criminal law against
guilty trust magnates and officials, and demand the enactment of
such additional legislation as may be necessary to make it impos
sible for a private monopoly to exist in the United States. Among
the additional remedies, we specify three : First, a law preventing
a duplication of directors among competing corporations; second,
a license system which will, without abridging the right of each
state to create corporations, or its right to regulate as it will foreign
corporations doing business within its limits, make it necessary for
a manufacturing or trading corporation engaged in interstate com
merce to take out a federal license before it shall be permitted to
control as much as twenty-fiye per cent of the product in which it
deals, the license to protect the public from watered stock and to
prohibit the control by such corporation of more than fifty per cent
of the total amount of any product consumed in the United States ;
and, third, a law compelling such licensed corporations to sell to
all purchasers in all parts of the country on the 'same terms, after
making due allowance for cost of transportation."
Here is a plain, candid statement of the party 's position. There
is no quibbling, no evasion, no ambiguity. A private monopoly is
indefensible and intolerable. It is bad bad in principle, and bad
in practice. No apology can be offered for it, and no people should
endure it. Our party's position is entirely in harmony with the
position of Jefferson. With a knowledge of human nature which
few men have equalled and none surpassed, and with extraordinary
foresight, he expressed unalterable opposition to every form of
private monopoly. The student of history will find that upon this
subject, as upon other subjects of government, the great founder
of the democratic party took his position upon the side of the
whole people and against those who seek to make a private use of
government, or strive to secure special privileges at the expense
of the public.
I have, in discussing the tariff question, presented one of our
remedies, namely, the removal of the tariff from imports which
compete with trust made goods. This, we believe, would greatly
lessen the extortion practiced by the trusts and bring about the
dissolution of many monopolistic combines. But we are not satis
fied merely with the lessening of extortion or with the dissolution
of some of the trusts.
Because the private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable,
the democratic party favors its extermination. It pledges itself to
the vigorous enforcement of the criminal law against trust mag
nates and officials. It is impossible for the republican party to
enforce the present criminal law against trust officials ; these officials
are intimately connected with the republican party in the present
campaign. Take, for instance, the chairman of the republican
speaker's committee, Mr. Dupont, of. Delaware. He is the de
fendant in a suit which the government brought and is now prose
cuting. Mr. Dupont is charged with violation of the anti-trust
law. Why should he be put" on the executive committee and then
be given control of the speaking part of the campaign? If you talk
to a republican leader about penitentiary punishment for offenders,
he favors fining the corporation on the ground that it is impossible
to convict individuals, but when you urge fines you are told that
fines are unjust to innocent stockholders. We favor both fine and
imprisonment, but we think it is better to prevent monopolies than
to first authorize them to prey upon the public and. then try to
punish them for doing so. Mr, Taft favors control of trusts instead
of extermination, but after years of experience the people have
learned that the trusts control the government.
Our platform does not stop with the enforcement of the law;
it demands the enactment of such additional legislation as may be
necessary to make it impossible for a private monopoly to exist in
the United States.
The democratic party does not content itself with a definition
of the wrong or with a denunciation of it. It proceeds to outline
remedies. The first is a law preventing a duplication of directors
among competing corporations. No one can object to this remedy
unless he is in sympathy with the trusts, rather than with the people
who are victimized by the trusts. There is no easier way of stifling
competition than to make one board of directors serve for a number
of competing corporations. It is not necessary for corporations to
enter into an agreement for the restraint of trade if the corpora-
ra&HsLsiVL
g fSWi-iferfS1 JS fe a!
xjJli ,. u.
1 lElL jukJwjJbllPtl ' '' ' T"'TTrTJ
