The Commoner.
W1LLIATI J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.
roI. 4. N. io.
Lincoln, Nebraska, March 25, 1904.
Whole No. 166;
The Duty of Democrats.
The. decision in the merger case imposes a
Mtiuty on democrats as well as upon the adminis
tration. The anti-trust law is held to be sound
and effective, but it must bo enforced before it
fccan hring relief to.tho public. The democrats
must now insist upon the enforcement, of the
law. TuBtice Holmes .n his dissenting opinion
h'says that indictments "logically ought to foli6w
Ithe decision," and the democrats in congress
fought to insist that the attorney general either
'prosecute or explain why rich and powerful vio-
EtiULOrs OI UIO lu-Yf UiO given immunity wmio yjJk
'and obscure violators are promptly punished. Not
tfonly should the law be enforced against those who
violated it in the merger case, but it should be
I enforced against those who are violating ic in
ithe almost innumerable trusts.! Are not the steel
trust, the coal trust, the oil trust, the beef trust,
jHhe salt trust, the sugar trust, the cracker trust,
?the tobacco trust, the whisky trust, the har-
E vester trust, etc. are not all of these violating the
I Sherman anti-trust law? Why are they permitted
to live and prey upon the country? The demo
crats should press, this question. If the adminis
tration answers thaf the decision does not reach
& single corporation, but only a .combination . of
Incorporations, the democrats should insist upon
mew legislation covering all private monopolies,
whether they operate as a single corporation or as
a group of corporations. The Kansas City platform
presents a remedy and the merger decision vindi
cates the principle involved in that remedy.
Congress has power over interstate commerce
Pf and that power alone can deal effectively with
I the trusts. As long as a corporation confines it
self to the state from which it derives its charter
the people of that state can be trusted to -deal
with it, but when it crosses the state line and
invades interstate commerce it comes under the
supervision of congress. Congress has made it a
criminal offense for two or more persons to con
spire to restrain trade. This ought to cover con
spiracy by persons in one corporation as well
as conspiracy by persons in control of separ
ate corporations. If it doesjiot do so, it is easy
to prepare a bill that will. The Kansas City plat
form proposes a measure making it unlawful for
a state corporation to engage in interstate com
merce without first securing a federal license or
permit, and it proposes that the license or per
mit shall be granted only after proof that the
stock of the corporation is not watered and that
the corporation is not trying to monopolize any
branch of business or the production or sale of
any article of merchandise, i Here Is a simple rem
edy; a remedy easily applied. It does not inter
fere with any legitimate corporation, but, on the
contrary, aids every legitimate corporation by de
stroying the greedy and conscienceless monop
olies. If the democrats expect to win the confi
dence of the people they must propose an ef
fective remedy. It is not sufficient to rail at re
publicans or to ask them for a remedy. The
people are looking for relle and they demand
positive, aggressive action. LThe trust question
k can be made an Important issue in the coming
campaign if the democrats will do their duty.
Let them call the attention of the country to the
question by refusing to consider anything else
until satisfactory action is taken. If the repub
Hcana are required to bring in a rule for overy
measure and are each time reminded that the
trusts still live, they will beforced to decisive
action or to abject apology jCato, after visiting
Carthago, resolved never to malTo a speech without
declaring it as his opinion that Carthage should
be destroyed. The democrats in the senate and
house might well paraphrase Cato's famous saying
and each day demand a vote on a resolution de
claring that "private monopolies must be de
stroyed." "The Kansas City platform points the
way will the democrats live up to that platform
or run from it? J
Instruct
t
The reorganlzers are trying to secure unln
stfucted delegations, filled up with men secretly
pledged to Cleveland, Hill, Parker, Gorman, OJney
or some other representative of the reactionary
element in the party. Why do they not ask for
instructions? Simply because, they know, that
theiir candidates are not strong with the pepple.
Let the friends of the Kacsas City platform in
struct for the reaffirmation of the platform, no
matter whether they meet in a caucu3, a county
convention, a district convention or a state con
vention. If the friends of the Kansas City plat
form can agree upon a presidential candidate it
is well enough to instruct for him also. Instruc
tions are democratic. Tboy r-xpro3s the will of
the voters and the voters have a right to bind
their representatives. If a would-be delegate ob
jects to instructions, let him stay at home. If the
reorganlzers believe in honest politics let them
come out into the. open and present the Issue to
the people. They dare not do that for they can
not appeal to the masses.
JJJ
" Stalwart Old War Horses."
Writing in the Louisville Courier-Journal,
Henry Watterson refers to "that stalwart old war
horse of democracy, the Chicago Chronicle." That
is a very interesting way of putting it. What
has the Chicago Chronicle ever done to win
that magnificent title? It has become famous for
bolting the democratic ticket, and it has re
peatedly refused to support democratic candi
dates in the city of Chicago.
The Chronicle is owned by John R. Walsh,
a banker who habitually votes the republican
ticket It shows in its editorial columns but small
sympathy with undisputed democratic principles
and many of its readers will distinctly remember
that not long ago the Chronicle plainly stated
that it was not a democratic paper and did not
desire to be so regarded. '
Perhaps, however, Mr. Watterson thought
that by establishing the claim that the Chron
icle is a "stalwart old war horse of democracy,"
he would provide a precedent whereby he could
-defend his own claim to that title.
Employer and Employe.
The Employers' Association Is busily engaged
combatting the reasonable request of the laboring
men for legislation which will give them an eight
hour day, arbitration of differences and relief
from the menace of government by injunction.
Do tho members of the Employers' Association
know what they are doing? Have they counted
the cost? Are they willing to establish a gulf of
ill-will between themselves and their employes?
The natural and necessary effect of the fight now
being made by the employers against tho wage
earners is to convert hopefulness and ambition
into sullenness and discouragement. The em
ployes .have wives and children usually moro
children per family than tho employers and
these men are interested in tho welfaro of their
families and In tho welfare of their country. They
have been asking for an eight-hour day In order
that thoy may have more time for physical re
cuperation, more time for intercourse with their
families and more time to devote to their own In
tellectual development and the study of the pro
blems of government. Is not their effort a laud
able one? Can it bo consistently opposed by men
who are able to care for their families much bet
ter and to spend much more time with their
families. To say that pome workingmen would
spend their idle hours in a saloon is no answer
to the argument In favor ot shorter hours. With
shorter hours will come movements for the im
provement of the wago-earhers movements that
are Impossible so long as men are driven from
bed to. work and from work back to bed again.
Some sons who Inherit money from their parents
not only squander it, but are injured by it will
the Employers' Association for that reason at
tempt to repeal tho statute of Inheritance?
iThe laboring men want arbitration of the dif- .
ferences between themselves and their corporate
employers. Can the employers afford to oppose
this? As well advocate a return to the wager of
battle as a means of settling disputes between in
dividuals as to argue that differences between
great corporations and their employes can be set
. tied only by strikes, lockouts and boycotts. When
the employer was an individual, had a few em
ployes and worked with his men, there were per
sonal acquaintance and mutual sympathy, but
now the man at the head of the corporation does
not know many of the employes, does not come
into contact with them or know how they live.
Often large salaries are to be provided for and
generally there are dividends to be paid on wa
tered stock. "Good times" are worked Tor all
they are worth and sometimes the employe is ex
pected to bear the brunt of hard times. The law
must supply through a board of arbitration the
element of justice which is now wanting. Em
ployers ask, Have we not a right to control our
own property? Certainly, so long as they at
tempt to control nothing else, but when in con
trolling their own property they also seek to
control the lives and liberty of their employes, they,
subordinate human rights to what they call prop
erty rights and this Is as dangerous to their own
descendants as to the descendants of those who
work for them. No method hag yet been devised
h
M
' ll
I. &-
t4ft.
tfu;
