CORPORATE CONTROL AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. From Speech of Hon. John J. Esch, of Wisconsin, in the House of Representatives, Thursday, June 16, 1910.

The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 26730) making appropriations to supply deficiencies in appropriations for the fiscal year 1910, and for other purposes

Mr. ESCH said:

of our

Mr. Chairman: The enormous natural resources country and their rapid development have given rise to immense wealth and afforded the facilities for accumulations, under corporate control, of vast fortunes. In no one line of development is this more apparent than in the growth and expansion of the railroads of the United States. The 230,000 miles of railways are now practically controlled by less than a dozen great syndicates. Unrestrained by federal authority, the influence which these syndicates could exert is not easy to comprehend. Transportation is so intimately connected with the welfare of our people and enters so directly into almost every transaction of human life that suitable and sufficient control is a necessity. No one denies that the railroads have been agents of great good in the development not only of the country itself, but of its natural resources, and it would be unwise to cripple, in an unjust or harmful way, their proper activities, but one can not close his eyes to the fact that as a result of their rapid growth and increase of power their influence in matters political has also increased, so that sections and entire States have come under their domination, a domination which has manifested itself not merely in corrupting legislatures and public officials, but also in the exaction of unjust and oppressive rates of transportation. The combination of competing lines through purchase or otherwise whereby competition was destroyed and the complete mastery of the transportation field acquired brought about an absolutism such as always follows in the wake of unlicensed or unregulated power. Through rebates and discriminations the railways made or unmade individuals, corporations, communities, and even States. So intolerable did this condition become that relief was sought at the hands of Congress and Congress responded by the enactment of the original interstate-commerce act of 1887. This act, for a time, afforded relief until a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1897 declared that the commission created by this act had no power to fix rates and therefore had no power to enforce its decree reducing a rate.

The impotency of the commission resulting from this interpretation of the original interstate commerce act was not remedied until the Hepburn Act of 1906, which act for the first time in specific terms gave authority to the Interstate Commerce Commission to declare what was a just and reasonable rate to be charged, and gave virility to its orders and decrees. The Hepburn Act, amending the Elkins Act against rebates and restoring the imprisonment feature, has resulted in a practical suppression of this pernicious practice. The operation of the Hepburn Act since its enactment four years ago disclosed certain omissions. These have now been supplied through the rate bill just enacted at this session, a bill more progressive and far-reaching in its effects than any heretofore enacted by Congress. It gives control not only over railroad, pipe line, express and sleeping car companies, but also over telegraph, telephone, and cable companies, so that now the Interstate Commerce Commission has jurisdiction over all these great public utilities doing an interstate business. The power of Congress over such utilities, so far at least as railroads and express companies are concerned, is unquestioned. In view of the nature of their business, there can be little doubt but that the courts will hold that the other utilities within the scope of this law will likewise be held amenable to it. As the combination of these utilities engaged in interstate business has, in a large measure, destroyed competition between themselves, the public can only be protected against unjust, unreasonable, and

exorbitant rates, fares, and charges by placing them under federal regulation and control.

The Republican party stands sponsor for these great constructive acts of Congress, and with a rigid enforcement of them great good has and will come to the people. The numerous prosecutions by the Department of Justice during the administration of President Roosevelt, who inspired the enactment of the Hepburn law, and of President Taft, who inspired the enactment of the law just passed, clearly indicate that so far as these Republican administrations are concerned no provision of these laws will remain a dead letter. The Republican party can well be proud of its record in connection with the regulation of interstate carriers and like public utilities.

Hand in hand with the rapid growth and development of the transportation lines of the country came a correspondingly rapid growth and development of industrial and financial concerns These are the days of the big corporation, the trust, the combination, and the syndicate. We would not condemn them indiscriminately. Great things can not be accomplished except through the aggregation of large amounts of capital. The individual, the copartnership can not meet the demands of the times. Whatever of good there may be in the corporate form of organization and in the combination of capital should be preserved, and their operations should be regulated and controlled through federal and state authority in the public interest. The evils should be eradicated. If, through corporations and combinations, economies in administration, a cheapening of the cost to the consumer, and more stable employment at better wage to labor can be effected, then we should by all means preserve and not destroy these advantages. If, on the other hand, through combination or trusts, prices are unjustly raised, labor unfairly treated, the individual or the independent corporation driven to the wall, production limited, the strong hand of the law, state or federal, or both, should reach out to restrain or to punish. In these days of large things, corporations, although chartered by the States and, in a way, the creatures of the States (rarely confine themselves in their operations to the States that grant them their charter; in fact, with many of the larger trusts and syndicates it is a common thing not to operate in the State which gave them birth. It is easy to comprehend how difficult it is for the separate States to bring about effective control and regulation of the great industrial corporations, trusts, and combinations doing an interstate, and often an international, business. It is because of the ineffective control by the States that the popular demand has arisen for a federal control, and Congress has responded to this demand by the enactment of the Sherman antitrust law of 1890.

The only laws now on the statute books of the United States having for their object the control of combinations in restraint of trade have been placed there by Republican Congresses under Republican administrations. The Democratic party, while agitating this subject for the last twenty-five years, has accomplished nothing, even when in full control of all branches of the Government. The record of Democratic do-nothingism in this connection is interesting and instructive. During President Cleveland's first administration, which began on March 4, 1885, the Democratic House, in the Fiftieth Congress, adopted a resolution authorizing the Committee on Manufactures to investigate trusts. This committee was composed of such distinguished leaders as Wilson, of West Virginia; Breckenridge, of Arkansas; and Bynum, of Indiana. After extensive hearings and the subpoenaing of over 100 witnesses, including Havemeyer and Spreckels of the sugar trust, Rockefeller and Flagler of the Standard Oil Trust, and representatives of the cotton bagging and the whisky trust, this committee, just before the expiration of that Congress, presented its voluminous testimony of over 1,000 pages, but made no recommendation as to legislation, "owing to the present differences of opinion between members of the committee," further stating that they "limit this report to submitting to the careful consideration of subsequent Congresses the facts shown by the testimony taken before the committee." In view of the fact that this commit

tee, at the time it made its report, knew that the subsequent or Fifty-first Congress was to be a Republican Congress, the submission of the testimony they had taken to a Republican Congress was an admission of their own incapacity to deal with the great question. This lame and impotent conclusion was practically repeated in the House in the Fifty-second Congress, which was also Democratic, by an overwhelming vote.

During President Roosevelt's administration and the present administration there has been the greatest activity in the prosecution of these unlawful combinations. Many indictments have been found and fines amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars have been paid into the Federal Treasury, all of which indicates the wisdom of the enactment of the Sherman law and a lack of foundation for the fears and misgivings and the open opposition of the leaders of the Democratic party during the last twenty years.

Owing to the dual character of our Government and the reserve powers of the States and the likelihood of conflict between the state and federal governments in controlling trusts and combinations, a strong sentiment has developed in favor of an amendment to the Federal Constitution giving to Congress power to defend, regulate, control, prohibit, or dissolve trusts, monopolies, or combinations whether existing in the form of a corporation or otherwise. An amendment to this effect was presented in the Fifty-sixth Congress. It met the vigorous opposition of Democratic leaders of the House like Richardson of Tennessee, the minority leader, and Mr. Bailey of Texas. Every Republican, save two, voted for this constitutional amendment, while every Democrat, save one, voted against it. As two-thirds are required to pass a constitutional amendment, the proposed amendment failed, and in view of the inability of securing a two-thirds majority in subsequent Congresses, no further effort has been made to amend the Constitution in this particular.

As further proof of the desire on the part of the Republican party to secure efficient and more complete control over corporations, trusts, and combinations, three measures of great importance were passed during February, 1903, the first session of the Fifty-seventh Congress.

The first of these was the act to expedite the hearing and determination of suits under the Sherman law and the interstate commerce act by providing that whenever the AttorneyGeneral shall file with the clerk of the court in which such suit is pending a certificate that the case is of public importance, it shall thereupon be the duty of the court, not less than three judges sitting, to proceed to hear and determine the case at the earliest practical date. An appeal from the decision of the trial court will lie only to the Supreme Court and must be taken within sixty days from the entry of the final decree. Second, the enactment of the so-called Elkins law, amending the interstate-commerce act, prescribing severe penalties for the giving or receiving of rebates, and making the carrier responsible for the acts and omissions of its agents. Third, creating the Department of Commerce and Labor and providing for a Bureau of Corporations therein, the chief of this bureau to have the authority and power to make diligent investigation into the organization, conduct, and management of the business of all corporations, joint-stock companies, and corporate combinations engaged in interstate or foreign commerce (ex(epting common carriers subject to the interstate-commerce law), and to gather such information and data as will enable the President to make recommendations to Congress for additional legislation and to compel the giving of testimony and the production of such books and papers and the making of such reports as may be necessary for the purpose of the investigation. This new bureau has already amply justified its creation. The main purpose it has in view is that of giving "efficient publicity" to the corporations of the country. In 1906 this bureau, through its experts, published the results of its investigation of the beef trust, and the same year its investigation of the transportation of petroleum, disclosing such a condition of discriminations and rebates as to immediately arouse the indignation of the entire country. As a result of

this report and the publicity given to it the railroad companies implicated in the report at once reduced their rates and withdrew their rebates.

The bureau has continued its investigations with reference to the harvester trust, the lumber trust, the steel trust, and . other combinations. The widespread public sentiment now pervading the country against the exactions of these great combinations of capital and the almost universal demand that these exactions should be rendered impossible hereafter, and that just punishment should be meted out to all violators of the Sherman Act, is very largely due to the published reports of this bureau.

In furtherance of the enforcement of the Sherman law, Congress on February 25, 1903, appropriated $500,000 for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the law, and vested in the Attorney-General the authority to employ special counsel and agents of the Department of Justice to conduct proceedings, suits, and prosecutions under the act. This was followed up by the act of March 3, 1903, providing for the appointment of special assistants to the Attorney-General and an Assistant Attorney-General to aid in the enforcement of the antitrust law. With this added authority, and with these additional means of prosecution, the Department of Justice has undertaken to enforce the law throughout the length and breadth of the country.

Until the leading officials of these great corporations, trusts, and syndicates are made to feel a proper respect for the law violations thereof may be expected. Vigorous prosecution and imprisonment, if need be, will have a most salutary effect. The honest corporation, like the honest citizen, need have no fear of the law. Only those who, through a violation of the law, seek to take advantage of the public deserve punishment.

WHEN WE PAID FOURTEEN CENTS.

The duty on paper was $6 a ton. The House committee, after a thorough investigation of the whole subject, recommended a duty of $2 a ton, and the House tariff bill fixed it at that figure. The Senate raised it to $4 and the conference committee of the two houses finally agreed on $3.75. Mr. Cannon admits the new rate was not satisfactory, but that it was the best that could be secured under the circumstances. We remember when we paid fourteen cents a pound for print paper, and we now buy it for less than three cents a pound, and the tariff did it by building up the paper industry in this country. We are satisfied with the tariff on print paper.Freeport (Ill.) Journal.

A WISE WORD TO THE WISE.

In an Arkansas paper, Democratic in politics, we find the following advertisement:

Get your flour, meal and feed at the Universal Mill; by so doing you not only get pure, unadulterated goods and full weight, but keep your money circulating around home and have a chance to get hold of it again. On the other hand, by the buying the cheaper mixtures that are shipped in and sending your money away, there is very little hope of ever seeing it again. A word to the wise is sufficient.

Presumably the advertiser is likewise a Democrat, and votes with great regularity to send to Congress a man who opposes the maxim, "Keep your money at home." That is protection doctrine pure and simple. It is sound doctrine for the Arkansas mill owner and for every man who has anything to sell. That is precisely what a protective tariff aims to do-to "keep your money at home," where it will circulate, and where you will "have a chance to get hold of it again." As Abraham Lincoln said: "If you buy an article made abroad, you have the article, but the foreigner has the money. If you buy an article made at home, you have the article, but the money stays at home." There is the germ of a good, reliable Southern protectionist in that Arkansas mill man.-American Economist.

Our Colored Citizens

Equal Justice to All Men.

"The Republican party has been for more than fifty years the consistent friend of the American Negro. It gave him freedom and citizenship. It wrote into the organic law the declarations that proclaim his civil and political rights, and it believes to-day that his noteworthy progress in intelligence, industry and good citizenship has earned the respect and encouragement of the nation. We demand equal justice for all men, without regard to race or color; we declare once more, and without reservation, for the enforcement in letter and spirit of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution, which were designed for the protection and advancement of the Negro, and we condemn all devices having for their real aim his disfranchisement for reasons of color alone, as unfair, un-American and repugnant to the supreme law of the land."-From National Republican Platform, 1908.

Taft Stands Squarely on the Equal Justice Plank.

"The Republican platform refers to these amendments to the Constitution that were passed by the Republican party for the protection of the Negro. The Negro, in the forty years since he was freed from slavery, has made remarkable progress. He is becoming a more and more valuable member of the communities in which he lives. The education of the Negro is being expanded and improved in every way. The best men of both races, at the north as well as at the south, ought to rejoice to see growing up among the Southern people an influential element disposed to encourage the Negro in his hard struggle for industrial independence and assured political status. The Republican platform, adopted at Chicago, explicitly demands justice for all men, without regard to race or color, and just as explicitly declares for the enforcement, and without reservation, in letter and spirit of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution. It is needless to state that I stand with my party squarely on that plank in the platform, and believe that equal justice to all men and the fair and impartial enforcement of these amendments are in keeping with the real American spirit of fair play.' Hon. Wm. H. Taft's speech accepting Republican nomination for Presidency.

Condition of Afro-American Should Be Advanced.

"As a Nation our duty compels that by every constitutional and reasonable means the material and educational condition of the colored race be advanced. This we owe to ourselves as well as to them. As the result of a course of events that can never be reversed, they are a part of our civilization; their prosperity is our prosperity; their debasement would be our misfortune.

"The Republican party, therefore, will offer every encouragement to the thrift, industry and intelligence that will better their prospect of higher attainment."-James S. Sherman's speech accepting Republican nomination for Vice-Presidency.

The Republican Party and the Afro-American.

Prior to the advent of Abraham Lincoln and the Republican party, about 4,000,000 Afro-Americans were held in bondage in the Southern States, then, as now, controlled by the Democrats, and when the Republican party elected Abraham Lincoln

254