'5r?,5R'flpirwi(VT;,w1''WOTr11 '"''
yg r fwgfar "T" ? yjpy'gw
tion of a monopoly within its "borders, and it
can prohibit, or should ho ahlo to, a monopoly
organized outside from doing business within
the Blate, but this power is not sufficient. -If a
trust has absolute control of the production of
the necessaries of life, a law preventing the
monopoly from doing business within a given
state might bring great hardship upon the people
by depriving them of the article controlled by
the trust. Under the constitution congress
has power to regulate interstate commerce,
and it does not tend towards centralization for
congress to exercise that power in behalf of the
people. The law proposed would not take
from the stato any right that it now has; it
would not encroach upon the domain of the
tatc, it would simply provide that the state,
while at liberty to create corporations for do
mestic purposes, could not create corporations
to prey upon the people of other states. No
state ought to permit a corporation to water
its stock, but if it docs what harm can come
from requiring such corporations to confine
their business to the state of their origin? If
the people of a state are willing to create a cor
poration and give it control of an industry in
the state, that is a matter for the people of
that state, but when that corporation attempts
to secure a monopoly of the industries ,of other
states, then the people of other states become
interested parties and, as. they cannot effectively
act singly, they must act together through the'
power conferred upon congress by the consti
tution. Congress cannot refuse to regulate inter-state
railroad rates on the ground that the -federal
government would be exercising too
much power, neither can congress refuse to
protect the people against trusts on the ground
that the federal government will bo strength
ened. The federal government was organized
to give to the people of the nation that pro
tection which must be Becured by the joint
action of the people of the several states, and
such joint action is imperatively demanded at
this time.
Mr. Post assumes that the only anti-trust
legislation necessary is to- withdraw all special
privileges granted by law.
Every trust or monopoly rests upon a cor
poration, and the entire abolition of corpora
tions would destroy trusts, but Mr. Bryan has
not believed it necessary to apply so radical a
remedy. He has sought to eliminate the evils
of corporations without destroying their ad-
vantages. He has sought to draw the line at
the point where they become injurious.
Mr. Post asserts that a monopoly would be
impossible without the possession of "some
legal advantage transportation, tariff, loca
tion, patents or sources of natural supply." It
has been pointed out in a previous editorial
that a corporation which can export its pro
ducts can have a monopoly, even under free
trade. It is also true that a monopoly can ex
ist, without any rolianco upon discriminating
freight rates. Tariffs have benefitted monopo
lies, and railroad discriminations have aided
them, but a monopoly could exist without
either. Patents have been the foundation of
monopoly, but such a monopoly is only tempo
rary, ana mo benefits of such a monopoly have
The Commoner.
been given to tho owner of the patent as a To
ward for his genius. It would bo possible for
a monopoly to exist without owning any of the
"sources of natural supply." We havo'for in
stance, woollen mills enough in the country
now to manufacture all tho woollen goods
needed by our people. Let us suppose that
they join together under orie corporation.
Being the only purchaser of wool that corpora
tion could fix tho price of wool; it could fix
tho price of tho manufactured article, and un
less organized labor could protect itself against
such a corporation, it could fix" the price of
labor. It would be very difficult if not impos
sible, for a corporation having a less capital to
compete with it, for it would be possible for
tho monopoly to reduco priceB in the neighbor
hood of the competing factory and, by keep
ing up prices elsewherefbankrupt its small
rival without serious loss to itself. This has
been the experience of many small factories.
Why permit tho creation or tho Continuance of
a monopoly? Why allow a corporation to en
gage in inter-state commerce for such a pur
pose? The private monopoly is to the indus-
' tries of a nation what the highwayman is to an
honest citizen; the-industrial life of the nation
needs protection from tho monopoly as much
- - as human life needs protection from the high
wayman. Mr. Post suggests no remedy for the trusts,
that is, no specific remedy,- he says: "Take
aWay their under-lying privileges of transpor
tation, patents and land, and competition, ac
tual' or possible, would make quick work of
their oppressive power. TKaf is the key to
tho trust question." "
Is it possible that Mr. Post believes that
private ownership in land is the foundation of
truBts? If so, must we calmly submit to mo
nopolies until the people are willing to accept
Mr. Post's views on the land question? Is it
not the part of wisdom to apply such remedies
as are within our reach? There are many
very earnest and very intelligent men who be
lieve that the private ownership of lands is the
greatest of all evils; they believe that the ulti
, mate solution of the social problem is to be
found in public ownership of land, but will
they refuse to assist in securing other methods
of relief until they can try their own method?
Certainly not. The single taxers, aB the fol
lowers of Henry George call themselves, have
helped the democratic party in recent cam
paigns, (and no one was more active than Mr.
Post) not because the democratic party endorsed
the single tax idea, but because the single taxers
wore willing to put tho government in the
hands of those who believe in Jeffersonian
principles, and permit a trial of the remedies
which the democratio party proposed.
Speaking of competition, it is only fair to
say that competition, like any other useful
thing, may be carried to excess or, to speak
more correctly, there can bo fair competition
only wlmro there is measurable equality be
tween competitors. Competition between the
standard oil company or tho steel trust and an
ordinary individual is as one-sided as a com
bat between two individuals, one armed with
bow and arrow and the other with a repeating
rifle. Society may protect the principle of
competition and yet 'place limits upon it, just
as society permits the collection of interest and
yet limits the rate. Fire is necessary to human
life, and yet fire uncontrolled becomes a de
structive force; water is required for -man's ex
istence and yet the devastating flood may do
immeasurable damage; the air which we breathe
is indispensable, and yet when that air is put
into violent motion it becomes the cyclone or
tho tornado. Competition is necessary; it is
the law of trade; it is a controlling force in
human affairs, and yet it may become destruc
tive. If competition leads parents to put their
children into factories at an early age, wo pass
laws fixing the age at which the children may
be employed; if competition unreasonably pro
longs the day's work we fix maximum limits,
and so if competition with the man-made giant
called a corporation becomes destructive of
the rights and interests of the God-made man
we can place restrictions upon the corporation,
prescribe conditions" upon which it can engage
in inter-state commerce, and if necessary arbi
trarily fix the amount of capital that may be
associated together in one corporation, say
what proportion of the total" product one cor
poration may control, or prohibit entirely tho
co-operation of distinct and separate corpora
tions. ' 'All the corporations ask is to be let
alone but the people need relief now, and wo
should secure such relief as is possible now.
If, in the years to come, some better remedy
is found it will be welcomed when it arrives,
but those who object to the remedy suggested
in the Kansas City platform do not propose
any remedy which is complete or which has a
prospect of speedy trial.
. w
A Criticism Answered.
My attention has been called to a commu
nication published in the Washington Post of
July 15, from which the following is an ex
tract: "It is a well-known fact, and susceptible of
ample proof, that Mr. Bryan, while conducting his
campaign for election to the office of chief magis
trate of this great republic, required his admiring
friends at each point where he addressed them
throughout the western states to hand up to him
or his financial representatives an envelope con
taining money in proportion to the size of the
town.
"In one small town in Indiana, not very far
from Brazil, the democrats of the region had
expended the full amount of the collection upon
the grandstand from which Mr. Bryan was ex
pected to speak. It was decorated and presented
a very bright appearance. Upon the arrival of
Mr. Bryan's train- and the meeting by him of the
committee of beaming admirers, Mr. Bryan asked
if any person had handed up the envelope, and
upon being informed that there had been none
handed up,' he declined to leave the train, and
remarked that he would say from the car platform
that which he intended to utter, and declined to
go to the near-by platform. This decision was
made because tho quantum sufficit was not forth
coming. This was commercialism with a ven
geance. If men democrats did not pay him for.
appealing to them for their votes for him, he cared
not to leave his sumptuous railway train."
Similar charges have appeared from time
to time during the last five years and ' I havo
answered them. Every person has had an op
portunity to know of the falsity of these
charges, but as tho Washington Post is usually
careful in its statements I make this denial for
its benefit. I never received any compensa
tion of any kind from tho National Committee,
from any State Committee, County Committee,
i
t . t.,Aj
L. jt&t