- *
. -fii
Cbe Conservative *
. Jn h8 lefcfcer
POLITICAL COR.
PORATIONS.
Bryan
"the democratic party does not seek to
embarrass corporations engaged in legi
timate business , but it does protest
against corporations entering politics
and attempting to assume control of the
instrumentalities of government. A
corporation is not organized for political
purposes and should be compelled to
confine itself to the business described
in its charter. " Notwithstanding this
assurance , the populist attorney-general
of Nebraska , under instructions from
Mr. Bryan , began suit against the cor
poration operating the starch factory at
Nebraska City to compel the abandon
ment and closing of the local factory.
The starch company is a corporation
that has never "entered politics. " It
never attempted to "assume control of
the instrumentalities of government. "
It never sought in any way to influence
legislation in its favor. It never asked
or received any bounty , bonus or special
privilege from the state. In short it
did confine itself exclusively to the
"business described in its charter. " But
this did not protect it from the attack of
populism.
Several months have now elapsed
since the filing of the petition agains
the starch com
Why Delay ? _ , ,
pany. In th
meantime this petition has been used as
the text for numerous declamations
against trusts by both the attorney-gen
eral and Mr. Bryan. But no effort has
yet been made by the trust smashers
to get any of the parties into court. No
summons has been issued or asked for.
If the law has been violated why have
not the guilty ones been apprehended
and brought to trial ? Why all this de
lay ? Can it be that the following sen
tence , from Mr. Bryan's letter , imme
diately after the one quoted above , sug
gests the reason :
"Honest corporations engaged in an
honest business will find it to their ad
vantage to aid in the enactment of such
legislation as will protect them from the
underserved odium which will be
brought upon them by these corpora
tions which enter the political arena. "
Mr. Bryan evidently did not mean it
when he said that corporations must
not enter politics.
Must Aid Bryan.
He
a cordial invitation to get into politics
and "aid in the enactment of legisla
tion. " He frankly says they will find
it to their "advantage" to do so. In
other words Mr. Bryan objects not so
much to corporations "entering poli
tics" .as he does to the way they go
about it. Corporations will find it to
their "advantage" to "enter politics" to
aid Mr. Bryan to make laws but they
must not aid anybody else to make
laws. Can it be that Bryan and Smyth
filed their petition against the starch
works as a gentle hint to that corpora
tion to get into politics the "right
way ? " Has the prosecution been de
layed to give the offending corporation
a chance to "come around" and help
Mr. Bryan to make laws ? And if it re
pent , even at this late hour , will it be
guaranteed that immunity which seems
to belong to the silver trust of Omaha , a
corporation that has found it materially
to its "advantage" to enter politics and
aid Mr. Bryan to make laws ?
Mr. Bryan has
THE MONEY TRUST. J. . ,
vehemently de
nounced every kind of a trust save one
( the "money trust" ) and about this he
has not a word to say. In 1890 he thus
indicated what the "money octopus"
was like :
"We are confronted today by the
most gigantic trust that was ever form
ed among men. Talk about trusts in
various articles which we produce , my
friends , all the trusts together fall into
insignificance when compared to the
money trust. " *
A few days ago some one asked him
how he would construe a law relating
to the "money trust. " He declined to
answer. This was his reply :
'I want the republicans who wan
that question answered to find out firs
what the law requires , and then I wan
them to know that if elected presiden
I will enforce that law just as I wil
enforce the law against trusts , and pu
striped clothes on big thieves as well at
little thieves. But if you ask me t (
construe a republican law I reply that
shall not construe a law until it become
my duty to enforce it. "
It is unprecedented for a candidat
for the presidency to make a political
distinction in laws.
Party President.
preBident Qf
the United States is the chief executive
officer. It is his duty to faithfully exe
cute alike all the laws of congress , re
publican as well as democratic laws.
But should the ambition of Mr. Bryan
be realized the laws of the United
States will all be classified according to
the party which proposed them and he
will have one way of construing repub
lican laws and another for democratic
laws. Do the people want a narrow ,
bigoted , partisan president , who will
look for the label on a statute of con *
gross before he will execute or construe
it ?
While address-
CORPORATIONS.
audience , Mr. Bryan propounded this
question , so ridiculous that it would be
unworthy of notice had it come from
any other man than one who aspires to
be president :
"Why should a corporation organized
in this state be permitted to enter into
interstate commerce until it first shows
that it is going out to do a legitimate
business and not going out as a high-
hjjvr
wayman ? " | $
It is pathetic in the extreme that Mr.
Bryan , who , it is reported , was at one
time a student of the law , should have
so completely failed to grasp one of the
most fundamental legal propositions ,
viz , the presumption of innocence on
the part of the accused until proven
guilty.
Mr. Bryan reverses this principle and
presumes the accused guilty until he
, proves his inno-
it r
Rcvolutloimry.r _ _
cence. He pre
sumes that every corporation doing bus
iness in several states , no matter if or
ganized in a perfectly legal way , no
matter how honest and legitimate the
business may Le , is presumed by Mr.
Bryan to be a highwayman , a thief or a
robber. In other words Mr. Bryan
would base his prosecution upon the in
tent and not upon the overt act. He
assumes that every growing corporation
seeks to extend its business not for the
purpose of honestly acquiring wealth
along the lines of legitimate enterprise
but is impelled by motives on a par with
those of the man who holds up a trainer
or robs a bank. Every corporation that
should , by selling good goods at low
prices , create a demand for those goods
in another state , would , if it attempt
ed to meet this demand , immediately be
placed under arrest by Officer O'Bryan
on the charge of highway robbery , con
fined in some dark dingy cell until it
proved that it was not a highway rob
ber. The method just mentioned is the
only way a corporation could do busi
ness outside of the state in which it was
organized. It could not go into an
other state and by force compel the citi
zens of that state to take its product
any more than Mr. Bryan could force
people to take his book if they did not
want it , and he generously admits they
are not compelled to take it.
If Mr. Bryan was more of a lawyer
and less of a demagogue he would know
that neither an individual nor a cor
poration can be convicted of crime upon
the ground of mere "intention , " unsup
ported by an overt act to prove the in
tent. When a corporation violates the
law it may be prosecuted and convicted
but it cannot be convicted upon the the
ory of intending to violate the law.
How then could this novel suggestion of
Mr. Bryan prevent corporations from
entering other states ?
It means that
WHAT FREE BH ,
earner
VER MEANS.
ble his wages , or live on half what his
day's labor will now buy because it
would reduce the purchasing power of
a dollar to that extent. Oan you double
your wages ? . And if you could would
you be any better off than you are now ?
