The Commoner.
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
VOL. 9, NO. 9
Lincoln, Nebraska, March 12, 1909
Whole Number 425
V
STRIKING AT THE TRUSTS
V H
The recent decision of the United States su
preme court in a case in which Louis Voight &
Sons Company, of Cincinnati, was suing the
Continental Wall Paper company is a step in
the right direction, and yet it only serves to
show the ineffectiveness of the present laws
against the trusts. In this decision the court
by a vote of five to four holds that a trust, when
it has once proved to be a' trust, can not collect
debts due it. The majority of the court hold
f that a trust whose business is confessedly un
lawful can not use the machinery of the courts
to enforce contracts made with it. It Is un
fortunate that such a decision should be ren
dered by a bare majority, for one change in
the personnel of the court might lead to a re
versal of the decision, and yet, suppose the
decision stands, it is not likely to embarrass
the trusts much.
The following editorial from the New' York
Times shows how easily tho trusts avoid this
decision:
"It is said that eels do not mind the second
skinning, and the wall paper trust, being bad
and dead, is not likely to mind the decision just
handeddown. The question is how the decision
affects other trusts. It would be a sad blow
if it disenabled them to collect any bills, but
as a matter of fact it embarrasses them only
regarding the debts which it is necessary to
collect through tho courts. To make this dcci-
cision of no practical effect It is only necessary
to make all sales payable upon delivery, or even
before delivery. That is a good way to do busi
ness, and especially good in tho case of pro
ducers whoso prices are so extortionate that
they are collectible only by a special obligation
apart from the interest of the unwilling buyer.
The case Is far from proving that trusts are
vulnerable to the law, since the case emphasizes
the fact that tho defendant was not slain by tho
law, but by its own uncommercial practices.
There will be no mourners at the grave of this
trust, and all other bad trusts will do well to
take notice of the facts. Good trusts, which
sell to willing buyers at reasonable profits, are
not concerned at all, unless perhaps the decision
may be taken to indicate a fixed intention upon
the part of the court to construe tho law against
trusts to mean exactly what it says, hurt as
it may and whom It may. Tho effect of tho
decision to encourage or to depress depends
upon this rather than upon the point settled."
Not only can a trust escape the force of this
decision by refusing to sell on credit, but It
call make Its exactions even more oppressive.
Why do thoso in authority hesitate to strike
at tho root of the evil? Why do they not at
tack tho principle of private monopoly and pro
pose legislation which will make a private
monopoly impossible? So long as a private
monopoly is permitted to exist it can transfer
to tho consumer every burden that tho people
attempt to place upon tho trust.
The democratic platform is tho only platform
that proposes a remedy. Denouncing a private
monopoly as indefensible and' Intolerable, tho
democratic platform demands legislation which
will limit the proportion of tho total product
which a corporation can control. Mr. Taft
objected to this as ho has objected to other
legislation which promises to bo effective, but
the people will learn after while, and through
experience, that the government must take sides
against the monopoly, and when tho government
is ready to take sides in earnest, it will not bo
difficult to protect tho public from exploitation.
Such decisions as tho one above referred to
servo to show how helpless tho people are under
present laws and how helpless even tho courts
are under legislation which merely attempts to
regulate. Regulation is all right for ordinary
corporations, but extermination of the prfnciplo
of 'monopoly is the one thing that can be con
sidered in tho case of a trust. 7.
THREE IMPORTANT CONGRESSIONAIr-INeiDENTS
Three important incidents happening imme
diately prior to adjournment of congress deserve
to be emphasized.
Whiler tho senate committee, charged with the
investigation of the Tennessee Coal and Iron
merger, made its report through individual mem
bers rather than as a whole committee, the re
'sult is a plain repudiation of the deal sanctioned
by Mr. Roosevelt and a stern denunciation of
the lawlessness through which that combine was
made possible. Senators Culberson, Kittredge,
Raynor, Overman, Foraker and Nelson all
agreed that the action of Mr. Roosevelt was a
violation "of the Sherman anti-trust law. Sen
ator Bacon also agreed that Mr. Roosevelt did
wrong, but Senator Bacon took the position that
it would be improper for the senate to take
action inasmuch as the senate Is the body be
fore which impeachment proceedings would be
brought. Foraker and Nelson, while agreeing
that the merger was in violation' of law, added
some private opinions.
In the .opinion of Mr. Nelson the president
may have been misled by the officials of the
steel corporation, Me'ssrs. Frick and Gary, who
urged upon him the necessity of permitting tho
steel corporation to buy the Tennessee concern
in order to save a business Institution In New
York during the panicky days of October and
November, 1907.
Culberson, Kittredge, Raynor and Overman
were all In favor of the government proceeding
against the merger -jwith the view of dissolv
ing it.
CONTENTS
STRIKING AT THE TRUSTS
THREE- IMPORTANT CONGRESSIONAL
INCIDENTS
' THE OREGON PLAN IN NEBRASKA
"THE SOFT-PEDAL TRIPLETS"
CHARLES NAGEL TRUST BUSTER
DOES ESMERALDA COUNTY, NEVADA,
GET THE MULE?
REPUBLICAN EXTRAVAGANCE
EDUCATIONAL SERIES HOW GUARAN
TEED DEPOSITS WILL AFFECT
THE TRAVELING MAN
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE
COMMENT ON CURRENT TOPICS
HOME DEPARTMENT
WHETHER COMMON OR NOT
MEWS OF THE WEEK
The house of representatives, by a vote of
175 to 172, rejected tho ship subsidy bill. Tho
principal feature of this bill was the provision
that American steamships of sixteen knots or
over and of not less than 5,000 gross tons shall
be paid $4.60 per nautical mile outward bound
on routes of 4,000 miles or upward to South
America, the Philippines, Asia and Australasia.
Mr. Moon, of Tennessee, speaking against this
measure, put the truth in a nutshell when he
indignantly declared: "It is an infernal fraud
designed to plunder the treasury." Champ
Clark, minority leader, declared that a lobby
had been carried on in favor of the bill "right
on the floor of the house."
"It is an outrage to a civilized country," ho
declared, "this thing of combining men, of but
tonholing men, and I undertake to say that when
Mr. Moon of Tennessee denounced this bill as
an infernal fraud, he used language that he was
justified in using."
The debate against the bill was closed by Mr.
Cockran of New York. He denounced the send
ing of the American flag abroad by a subsidy as
"an outrageous concession of the enslaving of a
people through the agency of a government."
A Washington dispatch describing the con
test on this measure says:
The feeling in the house strained as the hour
of voting. approached. The attendance was
probably the largest of the session. Everyone
recognized that the vote would be close. A
scene of wild confusion followed the roll call.
With the announcement of the vote of 172 in
the affirmative, the speaker hesitated to get a
good breath, then said: "One hundred and
seventy-five in the negative." The democrats
broke forth in cheers.
Mr. Overstreet was recognized and he asked
to be permitted to change his vote. This would
"frftfr,;,
iffa-ilfry
have allowed, him to move to reconsider and
have another vote on tho bill. Tho speaker in
formed him that the vote had been announced
and his request came too late. Thirty repub
licans votetT against tho measure and four demo
crats for it.
A dramatic feature of tho roll call was the
appearance of Representative Goldfoglo, of New
York, in an invalid chair, he having been
brought from a hospital where ho had under-,
gone an operation on his knee cap, in order that
he might record his name against tho bill.
The thirty republicans who voted against tho
measure were Boyd, Nebraska;-Burton, Ohio;
Campbell) Kansas; Chapman, Illinois; Cook,
Colorado; Crumpacker, Indiana; Davidson, Wis
consin; Dawson, Iowa; Gronna1, North Dakota;
Hinshaw, Nebraska; Hubbard, Iowa; Jenkins,
Wisconsin; Knapf, Illinois; Kennedy, Iowa;
Kusterman, Wisconsin; Lowdon, Illinois; Mc
Kinnoy, Illinois; McLaughlin, Michigan; Martin,
South Dakota; Morse, Wisconsin; Murdock,
Kansas; Nelson, Wisconsin; Prince, Illinois;
Smith, Iowa; Stafford, Wisconsin; Steenerson,
Minnesota; Wilson, Illinois; Wooyard, West
Virginia; Cary, Wisconsin; Cooper, Wisconsin.
Four democrats voted for tho bill, Bartlett,
Nevada; Estopinal, Louisiana; Hobson, Ala
bama; Janes, Virginia.
Senator-elect Benjamin F. Shively, of Indiana,
a1 democrat, strolled into tho house to
visit his democratic colleague from Indiana" . Ho
pricked up his ears when ho heard a remark by
Representative Overstreet, of Indiana, a re
publican. "What is he talking about?" asked the
senator-elect of Representative Adair, of
Indiana.
"Ship subsidy."
"Well, that is a coincidence. The last speech
I made in the house when I left the Fifty-second
congress, in March, 1893, was against a ship
subsidy bill. I come in today in the closing
hours of the Sixtieth congress and hear an In
diana congressman urging the passage of such
a measure."
The senator-elect listened to a' few minutes
of tho debate.
"Same old arguments on both sides," he com
mented as ho left the chamber.
Mr. Roosevelt refused to permit cabinet offi-
I
J