' * > <
.
'Cbc Conservative *
IJKYANAKCHY IN MISSOURI.
ST. Louis , Mo. , Aug. 26 , 1899.
EDITOR CONSERVATIVE :
As a citizen of Nebraska of forty-four
years' standing how proud you must feel
over the development of statesmanship
by the "Boy" Orator of the Plutto ! It
is great , and nobody but a boy , ignorant
of the political history of the nation ,
could have evolved it.
It is in Mr. Bryan's speech at the state
convention in Nebraska , and repeated
at Tipton , Mo. , yesterday. He proposed
a method of killing the trust octopus , so
that it shall be dead and stay dead He
said :
' 'The government should say that no
corporation should do business in any
state in which it was not incorporated ,
except under a license issued by the
federal authorities. * * *
It should be a penitentiary offense for
any one to do business with a corpora
tion not having such a license , or for a.
corporation to run in any state save the
one wherein it is incorporated , without
this license. "
There is knowledge for you ! No ! It
is the absence of knowledge the ex
pression of dense ignorance concerning
the relations of federal and state author
ity only excusable in a baby. No mat
ter what may be the differences of opin
ion between political scholars as to par
ticular phases of the state's rights prob
lem , no one can dispute the fact that ,
over and over agniu , the supreme court
of the United States has affirmed the
doctrine that neither the congress nor the
executive branch of the federal govern
ment can interfere with the exercise of
the police powers of the several states in
their own way under their own laws.
It is the law now common or statutory
that every individual state may pre
scribe the terms upon which a corpora
tion , its own , other state , or foreign , can
do business within its borders. When
at this stage of American progress a
person ignores this established principle
of our political system and professes a
belief in the authority of congress to
regulate or limit the conceded rights of
the states he is an ignoramus , or an
idiot , or he is deliberately talking over
the heads of men of sense for the ap
plause of the gods in the third tier. For
myself , I would not vote for a person
who would talk such bosh , for any of
fice in which common sense is required ,
under any circumstances.
The people are getting altogether too
much Bryan. Yours truly ,
Aua. F. HAUVEY.
ST. Louis , Mo. , Aug. 27 , 1899.
EDITOR THE CONSERVATIVE :
I dropped you a line last night touch
ing upon Mr. Bryan's preposterous plan
for killing the trusts. Here is another
of equal force in it betraying his ignor
ance of the science of common things.
It has been proposed as a solution of
the supposed trust problem that in all of
the states all laws restricting the per
sonal liability of stockholders in corpor
ations shall be repealed. Whether the
"boy orator" proposed it or not I am
assured that in several places recently
he has approved the scheme. If he is
not guilty , and will promise not to do it
I will apologize.
But the proposition has been made
and is meeting with favor in quarters
where knowledge of the commercial
history of the world is not profound.
Up to within sixty or seventy years
the rule of unlimited liability of stock
holders in banking , manufacturing and
mercantile companies was almost uni
versal. About 1884 or 1885 in Holland ,
provision was made for creation of trad
ing corporations with a rule of double
liability to stockholders. A few years
later in England certain kinds of manu
facturing enterprises were allowed with
double liability laws. I believe this
rule went into operation in Pennsyl
vania early in the 40's , and it was fol
lowed in nearly all other states before
1850. After that the necessity of fur
ther restriction became obvious and one
state after another provided that the
stockholders' liability should not extend
beyond his shares subscribed rpaid for
or not.
The necessity for the restriction was
in the fact that as the demands of a
rapidly increasing population for in
creased business facilities , say in trans
portation , banking , and manufacturing ,
became more and more importunate , it
was found that individual capital could
not be drawn upon individuals could
not meet the requirements and that if
they were to be met combined capital
furnished by combinations of individ
uals must be employed. But the enter
prises were new no one could assert
positively the profit and until that
could be done capital was shy ; moneyed
men were chary of risking their funds
against untried operations conducted by
managers who had to be educated to
new duties unless their possible loss
should be measured by the actual
money paid in or promised.
So the limitation to the stock sub
scription is nearly universal today. To
abandon the rule now would be to say
to the world that thousands of opera
tions which can bo carried on to the
advantage of the people in prices ,
in quality of products , and in ra
pidity of production and delivery to
consumers , only by the use of combined
capital , must bo abandoned , or left to
the irregular caprices of individuals.
Caveat emirtor has so long been the rule
of business intercourse in the commer
cial and manufacturing world that to
propose any other rule as the measure
of confidence in a company , or to deter
capital from going into business whore
only combined capital can bo handled to
advantage is to abolish the traditions of
trade , and bring on more than Bryau-
archy : anarchy pure and simple.
Yours respectfully ,
A. F. H.
FRIENDLINESS TOWARD ENGLAND.
In the September Pall Mall Magazine
Mr. William Archer , who recently
made a tour of the United States , writ
ing under the caption "America Today :
The Republic and the Empire , " says in
part :
"I did not wear my Anglo-Saxon
heart 011 my sleeve , or go about inviting
expressions of gratitude to England for
having , like Mr. Gilbert's House of
Lords
'Bonn nothing in particular ,
And done it very woll. '
Yet evidences of a new tone of feel
ing towards England mot me on every
hand , both in the newspapers and in
conversation. The subject which I
shrank from introducing was frequently
introduced by my American acquain
tances. It was evident that the change
of feeling , though far from universal ,
was real and wide-spread. Americans
who had recently returned to their na
tive land , after passing some years
abroad , assured mo that they were
keenly conscious of it. Many of my
acquaintances were opposed to the
policy which brought about the Spanish
war , and declared the better mutual
understanding between England and
America to be its one good result.
Others adopted the view to which Mr.
Kipling had given such far-echoing ex
pression , and frankly rejoiced in the
sympathy with which England regarded
America's determination to 'take up the
white man's burden. ' In the Kipling
craze as a whole , after making all de
ductions , I could not but see a symptom
of real significance. It was partly a
mere literary fashion , partly a result of
personal and accidental circumstances ;
but it also arose in no small degree from
a novel sense of kinship with the men ,
and participation in the ideals , cele
brated by the poet of British imperial
ism.
ism."The
"The change , moreover , extended be
yond the book-reading class , wide as
that is in America. It was to be noted
even in the untraveled and unlettered
American , the man whose spiritual horizon
izon was bounded by his Sunday news
paper , the man in the street and on the
farm. The events of the past year had
taught him and he rubbed his eyes at
the realization that England was not
an 'effete monarchy , ' evilly-disposed
toward a republic as such , and dully
resentful of by-gone humiliations by
land and sea , but a brotherly-minded
people , remembering little ( perhaps too
little ) of these 'old , unhappy , far-off
things , ' willing to bo as helpful as the
rules of neutrality permitted , and eager
to applaud the achievements of Ameri
can arms. "
