5T-
0
The Commoner.
tVILLfAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
ft"
iy..)Vf.
U.i. )
VOL. 11, NO. 49
Lincoln, Nebraska, December 15, 1911
e& T
Whole Number 569
Eederal
Incorp
oration
- In his annual message to congress President
Taft renews his recomtnendation for a federal
incorporation act, As The Commoner haB fre
quently pointed out, this is one of the most dan
gerous among all the dangerous changes sought
to be made by the special Interests. George W.
Perkins, the associate, of J. Pierpont Morgan,
may be said to be the originator of this plan
so far as present day agitation is concerned but
in-its nature It is older than Perkins and older
even than America itself. It is, in truth, part
jnd Jarcel of the doctrine of kings so far aa
that doctrine may be applied to a people strug
gling for the preservation of popular govern
ment. It means centralization in the federal
government of control over great corporations
and would make it that much more difficult for
the people, to obtain justice at the hands of
their corporate servants.
Mr. Taft says that the federal charters pro
posed by him "should be voluntary at least
until experience justifies mandatory provision."
But under his plan the corporation could select
the federal government as its watchman and
it is safe to say that it would take advantage
of the opportunity with the same readiness it
has ever shown preference for federal courts.
Mr. Taft has placed the cart before the horse
on this proposition. He has given choice to the
wrong party. Under our system of government
the state must be the creator of corporations
and whenever the time comes that that method
should be changed then the people should make
..the choice and the people alone are entitled to...
say whether in their capacity as the members
of the state they are willing to surrender this
control over their corporate creatures.
The federal government may well prohibit
. a corporation that has beon convicted of lawless
conduct from doing an inter-state business, thus
shutting it up in the state of its origin. That
is the plan suggested by Mr. Bryan but the
suggestion that the federal government be em
powered to issue corporation charters is centra
lization gone mad.
THE DUAL SCHEME
The democratic party is pledged to defend the
constitution and enforce the laws of the United
States, and it is also pledged to respect and pre
serve the dual scheme of government instituted
by the founders of the republic. The name,
United States, was happily chosen. It combines
the idea of national strength with the idea of
local self-government, and suggests "an indis
soluble union of indestructible states." Our
revolutionary fathers, fearing the tendencies
toward centralization, as well as the dangers of
disintegration, guarded against both; and na-
CONTENTS
FEDERAL INCORPORATION
THE DUAL SCHEME
THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
GOOD FOR MR. STEPHENS
THE TRUST QUESTION
SENATOR CULBERSON ON TARIFF
REVISION
A GOOD MARKSMAN
"'"GIVE THE VOTERS A CHANCE"
MR. TAFT'S NEW JUDGE
LET CANDIDATE FIT TIMES AND
ISSUES
.PRACTICAL TARIFF TALKS
THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY
HOME DEPARTMENT
WRECK OF "PRINZ JOACHIM"
VNEWS OF THE WEEK
WASHINGTON NEWS .
tipnaj safety, aa wen aa domestic security. Is
liL .f0,md ft the eyeful observance of the
limitations which they imposed. It will be
noticed that, while the United State guaran
tees to every state a republican form of gov
ernment and is empowered to protoct each state
against invasion, it is not authorized to intor
rere In the domestic affairs of any state except
upon application of the legislature of the state,
?u "P0?6 application of the executivo when
tne legislature can not bo convened.
uh ProvIsIn rests upon tho sound theory
that the people of the state, acting through their
legally chosen representatives, are, because of
their more intimato acquaintance with local
conditions, better qualified than the president
to judge of the necessity for federal assistance.
Those who framed our constitution wisely de
termined to make as broad an application of tho
principles of local self-government as circum
stances would permit, and we can not disputo
the correctness of the position taken by thera
without expressing a distrust of tho people
themselves.
The states are even more needed than they
formerly were for the administration of domes
tic affairs. As a matter of theory, that govern
ment is best which is nearest to tho people. If
there is any soundness at all In the doctrine of
self-government, the people can act most in
telligently upon matters with which they are
most familiar. There are a multitude of things
which can be done better by tho state than by
the federal government. An attempt to trans
fer to the national capital the business now con
ducted at the state capitals would bo open to
two objections, either oljgjhkJvwould be fatal.
First, congress coisranot transact tho business.
The work now devolving on the national legis
lature makes it difficult to secure consideration
for any except tho most important measures.
The number of bills actually discussed in a
deliberate way is small; moot of the bills that
pass are rushed through by unanimous consent,
and a still larger number die on the calendar
or in committee.
Second, the members of congress could not
inform themselves about local needs. The in
terests and industries of the nation are so diver
sified and the various sections so different in
their needs that the members of congress from
one part of the country would be entirely Ignorant
of the conditions in other parts of the country.
Whenever congress attempts legislation now for
a particular section, the matter is usually left
to the members from that section, but more
often the matter is crowded out entirely by
larger interests.
The farther the legislative body is from tho
community affected by the law, the easier it is
for special interests to control. This has been
illustrated in state legislatures when long-time
charters have been granted to franchise cor
porations by the votes of members whose con
stituents, not being interested, do not hold them
to strict account, and it would be worse if
congress acted on the same subjects.
GOOD FOR MB. STEPHENS
A Washington dispatch to the Omaha World
Herald, says: "Congressman Stephens refused
to accept salary for the period between the
death of Latta and his own election, sending tho
following letter to Sergeant-at-Arms Johnson:
'"I understand there has been placed to my
credit in your office the full salary appropriated
for my district and left unused by my predeces
sor, who died September 11, 1911. I certainly
am not entitled to receive salary prior to tho
date of my election and I therefore desire you
to return to tho treasurer of the United States
that portion of this amount which is aproxl
mately $1,200 and which accumulated prior
to the date of my election to the house of rep
resentatives November 7, 1911.'
"This action is without precedent In the
house, It is believed."
Mr. Stephens Is to be congratulated- He has
made a good beginning but he has done noth
ing more or less than his friends expected of
him.
The President's Message
In his annual message the prosidont says:
"It has beon said that tho court, by introducing
into tho construction of tho statute common law
distinctions, has omasculated It. Thin la
obviously untruo. By Its Judgment ovory con
tract and combination In restraint of Interstate
trade made with tho purpoBo or necessary effect
of controlling prices by stilling competition, or
of establishing In whole or in part a monopoly
of such trade, Is condemned by tho statute.
Tho most extremo critics can not inntanco a case
that ought to bo condemned under tho statute
which is not brought within its terms as thus
construed."
If that is truo then why has Mr. Taft neglected
to cause tho arrest of John D. Rockefeller and
other Standard Oil leaders, togethor with the
Tobacco trust magnates, under tho criminal
clause of tho Sherman anti-trust law?
Tho supremo court in tho oil and tobacco
decisions declared that these particular trusts
and tho men maintaining them had violated
tho law. Indeed, Mr. Taft himself gives in his
message, particular emphasis on tho "anti-trust"
quality of theso decisions. Ho says:
"In tho Standard Oil case tho supremo and
circuit courts found tho combination to bo a
monopoly of tho interstate business of refining,
transporting and marketing petroloum and Its
products, effected and maintained through
thirty-seven different corporations, tho stock
of which waB held by a Now Jcrsoy company.
It in effect commanded tho dissolution of this
combination, directed tho transfer and pro rata
distribution of tho New Jersey company of tho
stock held by it in the thirty-sovon corporations
to and among its stockholders; and tho corpora
tions and individual defendants woro enjoined
from conspiring or combining to restore such
monopoly, and all agreements between tho sub
sidiary corporations tending to produco or
bring about further violations of tho act were
enjoined.
"In tho tobacco case, the court found that
the individual defendants, twenty-nine In num
ber, had been engaged In a successful effort to
acquire complete dominion over tho manufac
ture, sale and distribution of tobacco in this
country and abroad, and that this had been
done by combinations mado with a purpose and
effect to stifle competition, control prices and
establish a monopoly, not only In tho manufac
ture of tobacco, but also of tin-foil and licorice
used in its manufacture and of Its products of
cigars, cigarettes and snuffs. The tobacco suit
presented a far more complicated and difficult
case than the Standard Oil suit for a decree
which would effectuate tho will of the court and
end the violation of the statute. There was
here no single holding company as in tho case
of the Standard Oil trust. The main company
was tho American Tobacco company, a manu
facturing, selling and holding company. The
plan adopted to destroy the combination and
restore competition involved the redlvlslon of
tho capital and plants of the whole trust be
tween some of the companies constituting the
trust and new. companies organized for the pur
poses of the decree and made parties to it, and
numbering, new and old, fourteen."
In this same message Mr. Taft predicts Jail
sentences for trust magnates in future prosecu
tions under the Sherman anti-trust law. Will
some one kindly explain In the president's biv
half why he again asks the people to wait an'
why he does not call the oil and tobacco mag
nates to account under the criminal clause crv
tho law w,hlch he says was so vigorously upheld
by the supreme court In the notable cases re
cently before that body?
GROWING
Col. Watterson's conversion to the Initiative
and referendum ought to convince the most
skeptical that these reforms are .not dangerous.
Surely the cause of democracy is growing.
fc.9
'Jttbti
ittf4-Hfl -
