Newspapers / Fayetteville Observer [Weekly, 1880-1919] … / Sept. 3, 1908, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of Fayetteville Observer [Weekly, 1880-1919] (Fayetteville, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
EDITION. WEEKLY EDITION. i Advance. Advance. Advanee. $1.00 per Annum, OLD SERIES-'VOL LXXII NO. 4,074 FAYETTEVILLE N. C., THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 3, 1908. NEW SERIES-VOL. XXIVKO 8,3x5 - Every bottle warranted, buff not one returned, Is the report regarding Dr. Beth Arnold's Balsam (the best Bum mer Remedy) from a large number of druggists la the South. This Balsam is warranted to you by King Drug. Co. and 0. W. Stanclll, Hope Mills. Why James Lee Got Well. Everybody In Zanesvllle, O., knows Mrs. Mary Lee, of rural route 8. She writes: "My husband, James Lee, ' firmly believes he owes his life to the use of Dr. Klng New Discovery, His Jungs were so severely affected that consumption seemed inevitable, when a friend recommended New Discovery. We- tried It, and Its use tasjestored him to perfect health." Dr. King's New Dlscove.y Is the King of throat and lung remedies. For coughs and ooldp it has no equal. The first dose gives relief. Try it I Sold under guar antee at B. E. Bodberry's Son's drug store. 60c. and f 1 00. Trial bottle ree. - . .- There are many Imitations of De Witt's Carbolized Witch Hazel Salve ' but Just one original" ' Sold by Ann field Drug Co. - .-':: Foley's kidney Remedy will cure any case of kidney or bladder trouble that is not beyond the reach of medi cine. No medicine can do more. Mc . Duffle Drug Store (O. 0. ' Soudera, Prop.). '. ' Pain anywhere stopped in 20 min utes sure with one of Dr. Snoop's Pink Pain Tablets. . The formula in on the 25-cent box. Ask your Doctor or Druggist about this formula! Stops . womanly pains, heaaacne, pains any- where. Write Dr. Shoop, Racine,. Win . "for free trial, to prove value of his Headache, or Pink Pain Tablets. Sold by B. E. Sedbenys Son. . PROFESSIONAL CARDS. Q. K. NIMOCKS, Attorney and Counsellor-at-Law, Rooms 1 and 8 K. of P. Building. piYirrsvini, . 'Phone 229 H. McD. RoDinson. John G. Ehsw. (Notary Public) . ROBINSON & SHAW, . Attorneys-at-Law, Offices on second floor National Bank of Fayetteville. H. S. AVERITT, Attorney-at-Law, (Notary Public). Office 125 Donaldson Htreet, Fayetteville, N. C. V. C. BULLARD, Attorney and Counsellor at L-aw, Notary Public, Surveyor, Office K. of P. Building, FAYETTEVILLE, N. C. DR. WM. S. JORDAN, Physician and Surgeon. Office in Palace Pharmacy. Hours: 8 to 12 and 3 to 5. - . Dr. E. L. HUNTER, Dentist. North-east Corner Market Square, Fayetteville, N. C. Dr. A. S. CROMARTIE, DENTIST, Over Shuford, Rogers & Company. 'Phone 838. J. M. LILLY, M. D. Practice limited to diseases of the eye. ear. nore and throat Office In Hlghsmitb Building, US Green street Hours to 1 and 2 to 5. "Phone No. 121 O. B. Patterson, D. D. 8. - J. H. Judd. D. D. 8 Drs. Patterson & Judd, Offices 2194 Hay Street, over Dunn ft Co.'s Store, 'Phone 65. E.J.S. SCOFIELD. M.D., Offers his professional services to the citizens of Fayetteville and surround ing country. Office with Dr. J. H. Moroh 9.19 Hiiv Street. 'Phone 77: Residence, Bt Luke's Hospital, 'Phone 124. - - MacKCTHttWTRlISTCO. . Market Square , IAYimYIU.I,K.O. - - Real Estate bouttht and (Old. - ' Loans neKOtiated and guaranteed. " "' Rants and Interest oollected. aoraae premlumi taken and loaned ben ' ; I. B. MaoKllBAM, Att'T.- Real Estate". - i; , ' 1000 Monroe Place, Ardtussa; J1800 Culbreth Place, 160 acres, with Im provements, near Hope Mills; $600 New - 1 room cottage,'; Canal street; $600 fine 4 room .cottage, corner Mechanic & McKay streets;, $300 fine lot, Arsenal Avenue, high est point r $50 to $150 aeveral re maining lots Fairground Park; $60 to $75 Choice lots Normal Annex; $ Tllghman lot, -corner-Green Sb Rowan streets, best vacant lot in city. .' T": ":y For Rent: -r' . 2 Cnrrle Stores in Brick Row'. .-. PARKA'S ' " HAIR BALSAM OlMnm mid bMutlfttf th hltr. $ PrnmntM . mxilrl.llt BTOWU1. ItAir to li xomniui ygior. tSS SfrtSX how to oouila patMta, tmla mark oonrrlghwoto, N ALL COUNTHIM. Buyout tHwi wllk WatU ngun mH to, money mi oftm UupotnU i , , , hunt ind Infrinrimtnt fttotloa EmImW.1. U Watk Stmt, on. 1Taita ttafaa tatart OS, mmm MR. BRYAN'S GREAT SPEECH ON THE TRUST QUESTION. He Flays Tift and the Republican .Party. , By telegraph to the Observer. Indianapolis, Ind., Aug. 25. Mr. Bry an delivered his keynote speech on the Trust situation to-day In connection with the notification speech of his running mate, John W, Kern, of the latter's nomination for vice-president. Mr. Bryan flays Mr. Taft and Repub lican ..leaders .who have blocked. -the enforcement of the existing anti-trust laws, and the Republican platform, wlilchT ne' declares, is luke-warm on the subject of private monopolies. Mr. .Kern's speech was in effect an answer to Mr. . Sherman's. Sherman ' said: The people do rule." Mr. Kern gave many. Instances showing where' the will of the people has been thwarted by a Republican Congress Measure after measure advocated by the people of all parties, many of them advocated by the President, have failed to pass. He also discussed the tariff and the Democratic remedy for curbing the trust evil. following Is the full text of the speech delivered by Mr. Bryan to-day on the occasion of the notification of Mr. Kern, the Vice-Presidential nomt nee: "' The Trust Question. Nowhere does the Republican party show Its indifference to real reform more than in Its treatment of the trust question. Here is the Republican platform: "The Republican party passed the Sherman anti-trust law over Democrat ic opposition and enforced it after Democratic dereliction. It has been a wholesome Instrument for good In the hands of a wise and fearless ad ministration. But experience has shown that its effectiveness can be strengthen ed and its real objects better attained by such amendments as will give to the federal government greater super vision and control ovr, and secure greater publicity in, the management of that class of corporations engaged in interstate commerce, having power and opportunity to affect monopolies. The Sherman anti-trust law was passed eighteen years ago; it has a Criminal clause which provides a peni tentiary punishment for those wno conspire together in restraint of trade. Ever since the enactment of the law, with the exception of four years, the Republican party has controlled the executive department of tbe govern ment, and during two years of the four, it controlled the house of repre sentatives. Instead of Democratic dereliction, the Democratic party has been urging; year after year, the strict enforcement of that law, and the Re publican party has been explaining year after year why it was impossible tn enfnrcn It. Instead of beine a wholesome instrument for good, it has been almost useless, so far as the protection of the public is concerned, for the trusts have grown In number, in strength, and in arrogance, at the very time when the Republican party was boasting of its enforcement of the law. The steel trust was formed immediately after the election of 1900, and a prominent Republican said, in a speech soon after, that it might have prevented a Republican victory it it had been formed before the election. Most of the trusts have never been disturbed, and those that have been prosecuted have not had their busi ness seriously interrupted. The Pres ident has done something toward the enforcement of the law, but not near ly enough, and the Republican leaders have thwarted him at every point, fi nally the President became so exasper ated that he sent to -Congress a mes sage which shocked the Republican leaders by the fierceness 01 its denun ciation of the predatory interests. The very convention that spoke in its plat form of the administration as "a wise and fearless one," was composed large ly of the senators and members -or Congress who boldly opposed every effort to free the people from the clutches of. the favor-seeking corpora tlons. The Renubllcan platform says that experience has shown that tne deiec- tlveness of the anti-trust law could be strengthened by amendments which will give the federal government greater supervision and -control over, and greater publicity as to, .tne man agement of those Interstate commerce corporations which have the power and opportunity to affect monopolies That Is all. No pointing out of reme dies; no outlining of a plan for more effective legislation simply a general statement that promises notnmg in particular. And Mr. Taft's speech of acceptance is even weaker than the platform. He gives no evidence of having studied the question or 01 com prehending the iniquities of a mono poly. - You. look in vain in bis notm cation speech for any sign of indigna tion at what the trusts have been do ing or tor evidence of zeal in their prosecution. . He nas, lor several years, been the intimate official com panion of the President, but he has caught none of the fire which the president manifested in his message of last January. . . . JT, 1n the presence of ' an -aronsed people, and in the heat ot a campaign the Republican-party contents Itself with--a colorless platform xn tnis sun Jeoti what can we expect in the way of activity when the exigencies of the campaign Are passed? If, wnen Mr. Taft ia appealing to the Roosevelt Re publicans, his discussion of the sub ject is so lifeless and his manner so apologetic and apathetic, what reason have we to expecf either vigor In the enforcement of the law or earnestness in the search tor additional remedlesT . In his speech delivered about a year ago announcing bis candidacy Mr". Taft suggested that the present law be so amended as to permit "reason able" restraint, of trade. Such an amendment would be as absurd as an amendment to the law: against bur glary limiting the law to cases in which more than two bu'rglars en tered the house at one time or took more than ljalf they found. In his no tification speecn lie suggests national incorporation a remedy which would make conditions worse because, with out uddln to the power of Congress to 'prevent monopolies, it would de prive the states of the power to pro tect their Own people. - ;v ' Now, let me contrast th6 Democratic platform with the Republican plat form... Nowhere is the difference in the temper of the parties more notice able; nowhere is the difference in the method of dealing wlttf questions more manifest. Our platform- says; "A nrlvftte monopoly la Indefensible find" intolerable:- Wo therefore faror the vigorous enforcement of the , criminal law against guilty trust magnates and officials, and - demand the enactment of such additional legislation as may be necessary to make it impossible for a private monopoly to exist in the Unit ed States. Among the additional rem edies, we specify three: ' Elrst, a law preventing a duplication of directors among competing corporations; sec ond, a license system which will, with out abridging the -right of each state to create corporations, or its right to regulate as it" will foreign corpora tions doing business within its limits, make It necessary for a manufactur ing or trading corporation engaged in interstate commerce to take out a fed eral license before it shall be permit ted to control as much as twenty-five percent of the product in which it deals, the license to protect the pub llc.from watered stock and to prohibit tne control vy sucn corporation 01 more than fifty per cent of the total amount of any product consumed in tne united States; ana, third, a law compelling such licensed corporations to sell to all purchasers in all parts of the country on the same terms, af ter making due allowance for cost of transportation." - Here Is a plain, candid statement of the party's position. There Is no quib bling, no evasion, no ambiguity. A private monopoly Is indefensible and Intolerable. It is bad bad in prin ciple, and bad in practice. No apology can be offered for It, and no people should endure it. Our party's posi tion is entirely in harmony with the position of Jefferson. With a knowl edge of human nature which few men have enqualled and none -surpassed and with extraordinary foresight, he expressed unalterable opposition to every form of private monopoly. The student of history will find that upon this subject, as upon other subjects of government, the great founder of the Democratic party took his position upon the side of the whole people and against those who seek to make a pri vate use of government, or strive to secure special privileges at the ex pense of the public. I have, in discussing the tariff ques tion, presented one of our remedies, namely, the removal of the tariff from Imports which compete with trust made goods. This, we believe, would greatly lessen the extortion practiced by tbe trusts and bring about the dis solution of many monopolistic com bines. But we are not satisfied mere ly with the lessening of extortion or with the dissolution of some of the trusts. Because the private monopoly is in defensible and Intolerable, the Demo cratic party favors its extermination. It pledges Itself to the vigorous en forcement of the criminal law against trust magnates and officials. It Is im possible for the Republican party to enforce the present criminal law against trust officials; these officials are intimately connected with the He publican party in the present cam paign. Take, for instance, the chair man of the Republican speakers com mittee, Mr. Dupn.nt, of Delaware. He is the defendant In a suit which the government brought and Is now prose cuting. Mr. Dupont is charged with violation of the anti-trust law. Why should he be put on the executive com mittee and then be given control of the speaking part of the campaign? If you talk to a Republican leader about penitentiary punishment for of fenders, he favors fining the corpora tion on the ground that it Is impossi ble to convict individuals, but when you urge fines you are told that fines are unjust to innocent stockholders. We favor both fine and imprisonment, but we think it is better to prevent monopolies than to first authorize them to prey upon the public and then, try to punish them for doing so. Mr. Taft favors control of trusts in stead of extermination, but after years of experience the people have learned that the trusts control the govern ment. Our platform does not stop with the enforcement of the law; It demands the enactment of such additional leg islation as may be necessary to make It impossible for a private monopoly to exist in the United States. The Democratic party does not con tent itself with a definition of the wrong or with a denunciation of It. It proceeds to outline remedies. The first is a law preventing a duplication of directors among competing corpora tions. No one can object to this rem edy unless he is in sympathy with the trusts, rather than with the people who are victimized by the trusts. There is no easier way of stifling com petition than to make one board of di rectors serve for a number of compet ing corporations. It is not necessary for corporations to enter into an agree ment for the restraint of trade if the corporations can, without violating the law, reach the same end by electing the same directors. The second remedy is one upon Which I desire to dwell at some length We believe It to be a simple, complete and easily enforced remedy. As stat ed in the platform it is: ; 'A license system which Will, with out abridging tne right or each state to create corporations, or its right to regulate as It will foreign corpora tions doing business within its limits, make it necessary for a manufactur ing or trading corporation engaged in interstate commerce to take out federal license before it shall be per mitted to control as much as twenty- five per cent of the product in which It deals, the license to protect the publio from watered stock and to pro hibit the-controi oy -sucn corporation of more than fifty per cent of the to tal amount of any product consumed In the united States." It will be noticed, In the first place, that care wag taken by those who drew the platform to provide that there should be no abridgment of the right of a state to create corporations; or of its right to regulate as It will foreign corporations doing business within Its limits. This plan, therefore, does not in the least Infringe upon the right of the states to protect their own people. It simply provides tor the exercise; by Congress of. the power vested in It to regulate interstate com merce. As long as a corporation con fines itself to the state in which It is created, Congress can not Interfere with it; but when the corporation en gages in interstate commerce, Con gress is the only power that can regu late Its Interstate ousiness. , - In proposing tne exercise of this power, the Democratic platform Is not asserting a new doctrine. In January, 1896, a Republican House of Repre sentatives adopted a resolution calling upon Hon. Judson Harmon, then at toraev. general of the United States, now the Democratic candidate for gov ernor in Ohio, to report, what ateps, it any, had been taken to enforce the law of the United States against trusts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade and commerce, and what further legislation was, in his opinion, needed to protect the peo- pla-against-the-Bam. -vn tne- tn day of February he submitted a- re ply, in which he described the steps which were being taken to enforce the law, and recommended the enact ment of further legislation. ' I call special attention . to the , following words: "Congress may Inake it unlawful to ship from one state to another, In carrying out, or attempting to carry out, the designs of such (state) organ izations, articles produced, owned or controlled by them or any of their members or agents." r His recommendation embodies the very idea which our plan now propos es to carry out We want to make it unlawful for a corporation to use tbe instrumentalities of . interstate com merce for the carrying out of a monop olistic purpose. . Surely no. party can consistently claim to be opposed to private monopolies which will permit the Interstate railroads to be used to carry out the designs of a monopoly, or which will permit the interstate telegraph lines tq be used to increase the power of a private monopoly; or, to make the case stronger, no party can consistently claim to be opposed to the trusts which will allow the malls of the United States to be need by the trusts as an agency for the ex termination of' competition. Congress has already exercised this power to ex terminate lotteries. Why not exer cise It to make private monopolies Im possible? If It is conceded that Congress has the power to prevent the shipment of goods from one state to another when such shipment is a part of a conspi racy against trade and commerce then the only question is as to the means to be employed to prevent such ship ment. The license system presents an easy way of regulating such corpora tions as need federal regulation. The law can prohibit the doing of a thing and impose a penalty for the violation of the law, but experience has shown that it is very difficult to gather up evidence from all sections of the unit ed States and prosecute a great corpo ration; so difficult Is It that although the Sherman antitrust law has been In force for eighteen years, no trust magnate has-been sent to the peniten tiary for violating the law, although in a few cases the court has found corporations guilty of a violation of the law. In the enforcement of a pen alty, the government must seek the de fendant; by the use of the license sys tem, the corporation is compelled to seek the government. A trust can best be defined as a corporation which controls so large a proportion of the total quantity 01 any article used In this country as to be able to regulate the price and terms of sale, and as the proportion controll ed determines the power of the trust for harm, it has seemed best to use proportionate control as the basis of this plan, and twenty-nve per cent nas been fixed arbitrarily as the propor tion at which the line should be drawn A corporation which controls less than twenty-five per cent of the product in which it deals, may; In extnaordinary cases, exert a perceptlbjejjfluence in controlling the price 01 tne product and the terms of sale, but as a rule a corporation must control more than that percentage of the total proquct before it can exert a hurtful Influence on trade. Under this plan, the small corporations are left entirely free and unhampered. This is not a aiscrimi nation against the larger corporation but a recognition of the fact tnat rules are necessary In the case of cor porations controlling a large percen tage of the product which are not nec essary in the case of smaller corpora tions. Probably not one per cent or the corporations engaged in interstate commerce would be required to take out a license under this plan possibly not one-half of one per cent rand yet what a protection the remaining nine ty-nine per cent would find in the law requiring a license in the case of the larger ones! The license, however, would not pre vent the growth of the corporations licensed. It would simply bring tnem under the eye of the federal govern ment and compel them to deal with the public in such a way as to afford the public the protection necessary. One of the restrictions suggested Is that such licensed corporations be compelled to sell to all purchasers in all 'parts of the country on the same terms, after making due allowance for cost of transportation. Mr. Tart at tacks this restriction as "utterly im practicable." He says: "If it can be shown that in order to drive out competition, a corporation owning a large part of the plant producing an article is selling in one part of the country, where It has competitors, at a low and unprofitable price, and in another part of the country, where it has none, at an exorbitant price, this 1 evidence that it is attempting an unla w ful monopoly and justifies conviction under the anti-trust law." If such an act Is now unlawful, wh Is he so frightened at a plan which gives to the small competitor this very protection? The trouble with the present law Is that it does not restrain the evils at which it 1b aimed. The plan propos ed in the Democratic platform brings the corporation under the surveillance of the government when it has reach ed the danger point, and thereafter subjects it to federal scrutiny. The present law simply prohibits it in an Indefinite sort of way, and then leaves the officers of the law to scour the country and hunt ud violations of the law's provisions. Mr. Taft is unduly ularmfirt ftt. this proposal, or else he entirely fails to comprehend the de tails of the plan. He says: "Tosupervise the business of corpo rations in such a way as to fix the nrice of commodities and compel the sale at such price is as absurd and so cialistic a plank as was ever Inserted in a Democratic political platform." And yet this sentence Is found in the same paragraph with the sentence above quoted in which he declares that it is even now a violation of the Sherman anti-trust law for a corpora tion to attempt to destroy a competi tor by selling at a low and unprofit able price where It has competition, and at an exorbitant price where It has no competition. In what respect is our plan more socialistic than the plan which Mr. Taft endorses? Mere ly In the fact that ourg can oe eniorc ed. According to Mr. Taft's logio, 1 plan is not socialistic which is not effective, but the same would be so cialistic If made effective. Why should a corporation supplying . twenty mil lions of people for a corporation con trolling twenty-five per cent of the total product supplies onefourth, or more, of our population-rshould such a corporation be permitted to sell at one price In one part of the country and at another price in another part? What reason can a corporation have for such discrimination? Prices are not made as a matter of favor; when a big corporation sells to the people of one section at one price and the people of another section at another price the efcst of transportation be ing taken into consideration tier is reason for it, and in almost, every case the reason is to be found in the effort to destroy a competitor. One of the most familiar methods of the trust is to under-sell a small competitor in the small competitor's territory the price being maintained elsewhere un til the small competitor Is driven to bankruptcy and then price is raised. That has been done over and over again. It is open and notorious; and yet, with the Republican party in com plete power at Washington, what ef fort has been made to prevent this. This remedy, although vehemently de nounced by Mr. Taft, will appeal to tbe average man as not only very salu tary, but very necessary. Fifty per cent Is fixed as the maxi mum limit. When a corporation con trols fifty per cent of the total pro duct, It supplies forty millions of peo ple with that product. Is that not enough? Mr. Taft's objection to this limitation can hardly be characterized as statesmanlike. He says: "A corporation controlling forty-five or fifty per cent of the product, may by well known methods, frequently ef fect a monopoly and stamp out com petition In a part of a country as com pletely as if it controlled Bixty or sev enty per cent thereof." Why, then, does he not propose a lower limit? If the control of forty five per cent may constitute a monop oly, why does he not suggest that as a maximum? It can not be because of any disinclination to amend his platform, for he has already made a patchwork quilt of the convention's platform by promiscuous amendments. And to what well known methods does he refer? To the underselling of competitors In one section while the price is maintained elsewhere? And yet this Is the very thing which we propose to remedy, but he proceeds to denounce our remedy, as absurd and socialistic. The trouble with Secre tary Taft is that he spends so much time trying to discover excuses for In action in trust maltern that he has none left for the consideration of ef fective remedies. He spends more time uttering warnings against reme dies proposed than he does in point ing out the evils to be remedied or In suggesting remedies. He says: "The combination of capital In large plants to manufacture goods with the greatest economy is just as necessary as the assembling of the parts of machine to the economical and more rapid manufacture of what in old times was made by hand. And he adds that: "The government should not inter fere with one any more than the other, when such aggregations of capital are legitimate and are properly control! ed, for they are the natural results of modern enterprise and are beneficial to the public. No one proposes to Interfere with production on a large scale. No one objects to production on a scale suffi ciently large to enable the producer to utilize by-products and take advantage of all the economies that large produc tion makes possible. It is just here that the trust magnates attempt to confuse the public mind, and Mr. Taft has unconsciously adopted their lan guage. Let the issue be made plain; let the distinction be accurately drawn; let the respective positions of the parties be fully understood. The Democratic party does not oppose all corpora tions; on the contrary, it recognizes that the corporation can render an Im portant service to the public. The Democratic party wants to employ ev ery instrumentality that can be em ployed for the advancement of the common good; hut the Democratic party draws the line at the private monopoly, and declares that a private monopoly can not be justified on elth er economic or political grounds. From an economic standpoint, a mo nopoly is objectionable. The moment a corporation secures a practical mo nopoly in the production or sale of any article, certain evils appear which outweigh any good that can come from large production or control. Wherev er private monopolies exist, certain Ir resistible tendencies manifest them selves. First, 11 raises prices this is the first thing thought of for the in creasing of profits. Then, In proportion as It becomes the only purchaser of the raw material, it reduces the price of the raw material, and the producer of that raw material, having no other market, must accept the price offered In this way, too, the profits of the cor poration are increased. Third, a re duction in the quality of the product affords an opportunity for increasing profits. Fourth, reduction In wages follows wherever conditions will per mit. Competition protects the purchaser, for when a number of independent pro ducers stand ready to supply him with what he needs, he can choose between them and buy from the one who offers the best product at the lowest price, He Is also protected In quality because those who compete for the opportu nity to sell to him must show either advantage in price or advantage In quality. Competition protects the man who produces raw material, for when there are a number of bidders for that which is being sold, he can accept the highest price offered. Competi tion also helps the wage-earner, for his skill Is the finished product which he offers upon the market, and where a number of independent industries are endeavoring to secure the highest skill, the skilled laborer lias the best assurance of -obtaining a fair recom pense ; when there is but one employer, the employe must take the price offer ed, because he will lose the advantage of his experience it he must go out to find a different kind of employment The business of the country have felt the pressure of the trusts. The retailer has been compelled to enter into contracts which restrict his man agement of his own affairs, he has found the terms of sale and payment changed to his disadvantage and he has been forced to carry more and more of the risks of trade. He Is con vinced that there are nb good trusts and that his only safety Is in the Dem ocratic plan which lays the axe at the root of the tree. The traveling men naturally take especial interest in the trust question because the more complete the mono poly secured by a corporation the less they are needed. We have no more intelligent class than the representa tives of commerce, and - their retire ment from the road would mean a se rjous loss to the country while a few promoters would be the only persons benefitted, they gaming by tne capital isation . of the salaries saved by the elimination of competition. Mr. Taft either misunderstands or misrepresents the Democratic position In regard to the extermination of the principle of private monopoly. In his notification speech, he says: ' "Mr. Roosevelt would compel the trusts to- conduct their .business in lawful manner and secure the bene fits of their operation and the main tenance of the prosperity of the ooun- UyUoh4heyajaamporUoi part; while Mr. Bryan would extirpate and destroy the entire business in or der to stamp out the evils which they have practiced." Here Is a confession by Mr. Taft that be regards the trusts as neces sary to the nation's prosperity, for he declares that they play an important part in the maintenance of prosper ity, and he charges that I would "extir pate and destroy" business in extir pating and destroying the principle of private monopoly. Surely, bis study of the trust question has been very superficial, if he sees danger in tne restoration of a reign of competition. Let us take an illustration: Sup pose the Democrats succeed In the enactment of a law in harmony with the Democratic platform a law re quiring every corporation to take out federal license before It is permit ted to control twenty-five per cent of the business in which it is engaged. Would this "extirpate and destroy" the business of the country? As aiready stated, but a very small per cent of the corporations would be affected by the law ,and those affected woura oe tne ones that have been giving the offi cers of the law so much trouble during the last 18 years. As the licensed cor poration increased its business from 25 per cent to 50 per cent, it wouia be under the watchful eye of the gov ernment, would be compelled to make such reports as the government re quired, would be prohibited from wat ering Its stock, and would be required to sell to all customers upon the same terms, due allowance being made for cost of transportation. Would it "ex tirpate and destroy" business to re quire these licensed corporations to do business on an honest basis and to oe reasonable in their business methods? Would not the benefit accruing to the ninety-nine small corporations thus protected from conscienceless meth ods be enough to offset any evil ef fects that might follow from such res traint of a few big corporations. Is business so dependent upon dis honesty and unfairness that it would be "extirpated and destroyed" If mor als were introduced into it? When the licensed corporation reached a point where it controlled one-hair 01 tne business In which it was engaged, it would according to the Democratic plan, have to stop expanding, would It "extirpate and destroy" business to put this limitation upon the greea of a few corporations? Surely our plan could not injuriously arrect cor porations that might hereafter seek to establish a monopoly. Rut possibly Mr. Taft thinks that it would "extirpate ana aesiroy uusi ness to apply the plan to existing mo- nonolies. Let Us see: Suppose we have a corporation now controlling seventy-five per cent, or tne output 01 1 he article n which it deals, ana throueh this control, regulating the price and the terms of sale. How would the Democratic plan aneci it: A date would be fixed at which the law would take effect, and on or be fore that date the corporations would be required to apply for a license. The evidence would show that it contronea a larger proportion of the product than the law permitted, and it wouiq De compelled to sell off enough of Us plants to reduce its output to fifty per cent of the total proauct. it couiu then comply with the law, obtain its license, and proceed to carry on its business in accordance with tne law Would it "extirpate and destroy" bus! ness to compel such a corporation to dispose of enough of its plants to re duce its production to ntty per cent: The people would still need tne ar ticle which it produced, and the plants which It was compelled to sell wouia become independent plants competing with it. This competition would re duce prices, and the reduced prices would increase the demand tor tne ar tide, and this increased demand would stimulate the building of more facto ries and give a larger employment to labor. The restoration or competi tion in that industry, instead of "ex tirpating and destroying" the industry would revive and enlarge it. A pan 01 the benefit would go to the consumers in the form of a cheaper product and a better product, part would go to the producer of raw material in tne form of a better price, and part wouia go to the wage earners in the form of better wages. The only persons to lose would be the trust magnates, who would no longer be able to collect div idends on watered stock by controll ing the market. When the subject I analyzed It will be seen that Mr. Taft must either be in darkness as to the remedy and It3 effect, or he must ar gue that the Introduction of morals Into business would "extirpate and de stroy" business. I have quoted and re-quoted Mr. Taft s language because 1 want to im press uoon the minds of those who lis ten to me the absurdity of the objec tion which he raises to the Democrat ic plan of exterminating monopolies. He falls to distinguish between the honest business that makes a country prosperous, and the brigandage prac ticed by private monopolies. The peo ple have been robbed by the trusts to. the extent of hundreds of millions a year, and if Mr. Taft is not yet con scious of what is going on, and not yet aroused to the iniquity of the trusts, how can the country hope for relief through his election? The Democratic party is the de fender of competition and the only great party which Is seeking to re store competition. Mr. Tart nas, in the discussion of this question, em ployed harsh words instead of argu ment. The word "socialistic" Is hurl ed at the Democratic party and the Democratic platform. Now, as a mat ter of fact, it Is Mr. Taft's. party and not the Democratic party which has given encouragement to socialism. While professing to abhor socialism, the Republican party has gone halt way toward socialism In endorsing its fundamental principle. The social ist bases his contention on the theory that competition is bad, and that eco nomic advance is to bo found in mo nopoly. The socialist, however, wants the public to have the benefit of the monopoly and, therefore, favors gov ernment ownership and operation of all the means of production and dis tribution. The Republican party has gone al most as far as the socialist party In the economic defense of the monopoly, but it permits the benefits of monop oly to be jenjoyed by a comparatively few men, who have secured a domi nant influence in the government. beg to call Mr. Taft's attention to the fact that the Republican party has stimulated the growth of socialism in two ways: First, by the endorsement that, it has given to the theory that trusts are a natural and necessary outgrowth of our economio conditions, and. second, by permitting the devel opment of abuses which ' have been charged against individualism. If he Will examine the vote published in the World Almanac, he win find that in 1900 the Republicans polled 7,208,244 votes and that the socialists polled but 85,991; in the same almanac, he wUlfin(iah.ljkiaoi.iliQ,JRepubUcau8 cast 7,625,489 votes and the socialists 402,286. Notwithstanding the fact that the Republicans have boasted of their last national victory, their par ty polled but 417,000 more votdh that year than four years before. This scarcely more than covered the nat ural Increase In the Republican por tion of the population, while the so cialist vote Increased more than three hundred per cent, and the Increase in votes was almost as great as the in crease in Republican votes. Tbe Republican leaders have been In the habit of sneering at the so cialists, while blindly indifferent to the causes that have contributed to the growth of -socialism. The Demo crats recognize that socialists are hon estly seeking a remedy tor the "known abuses" admitted by Secretary Taft. Democrats dissent from the remedy proposed by the socialists, believing that socialists are mistaken and that the Democratic remedy is bettor, but It Is time for thoughtful people to rec ognize that Individualism can only be retained and defended by remedial legislation which will remove the abuses which have been allowed to fasten themselves upon the country. The Democratic party, believing In individu alism, addresses Itself earnestly to these abuses, and Instead of ridicul ing and maligning the socialists, In vites them, as it does Republicans, to examine the Democratic platform and the remedies proposed therein. It sub mits its plans to the honest citizen ship of the country, without regard to section or party. In my notification speech I called attention to three demands made by our party. It asks, first, that the government shall be taken out of the hands of special Interests ,and restor ed to the people as a whole; It asks second, for honesty in elections and publicity in regard to campaign funds, that the people may Treely choose rep resentatives In sympathy with them ana pledged to guard their Interests it asks, third, for such a modification of our governmental methods as will make the senate an elective body, ahd place the control of the house of rep resentatives In the hands of a major ity of its members. A few days ago. In discussing the tariff question, I dwelt upon the fourth demand made by our party, namely, that taxation be Just, that the revenue laws be made for the purpose of raising revenue and not for the enrichment of a few at the expense of the many, and that the tariff law be supplemented by an income tax which will more nearly equalize the government's burdens. To day I present another demand made in our party platform the demand that the grip of the trusts be broken, that competition be restored and that the door of opportunity be opened to the business men and the toilers of the land. Industrial Independence Is neces sary to political independence. The free exercise of the rights of citizen ship is Impossible when a few men control the industries In which' mil lions are employed. God forbid that we should compel the wage-earners of the nation to address their petitions to trust magnates, and ask for their daily bread. Already we have seen how prone the monopolist is to make employment depend upon the willing ness of the employe to prostitute his ballot to the service of hm corporate master. This question should be settled now we can not afford to bequeath it as a legacy of woe to a succeeding gener ation. The conscience ofthe people is already awakened and the conscience is the most potent force of which man has knowledge. Where law makes one righteous, conscience controls an nun dred; where one is kept from wrong doing by fear of prison doors, a thou sand are restrained by those invisible walls which conscience rears about us barriers which are stronger than walls of granite. It is upon the con science that human institutions rest and without a stirring of the con science no great reform is possible. To a national conscience already aroused we appeal, with the pledge that a Democratic vie lory will mean the ringing out 0 Industrial despotism and the ringing in of a new era in which business will be built upon Its merits, and in which men will succeed, not in proportion to the coercion they may be able to practice, but in proportion to their In dustry, their ability and their fidelity. AS TO THE BALTIMORE SUN. The anti-Bryan papers seek to make a "dog fall" of the circumstance that while the New York World has declar ed for Bryan the Baltimore Sun has declared for Taft. The point is far from being well taken: Both the Sun and the World have been, to all intents and purpos es, Republican papers for twelve yean past; therefore, the account stands to this effect, viz: that the Democratic cause has secured a recruit in the World's accession and has lost nothing in the Sun's "standing pat." Besides, the infiuenie of the World Is ten to twenty times that of the Sun. The excellent Norfolk Vlrglnlan-P.-lot has this to say concerning the Sun's dodging from pillow to post in the past, as the Bryan Democrats were made to appear to be "paramountlng," or to be neglecting to "paramount," this, that, or the other doctrine: "The Maryland Democrats have one efficient method in their reach of ef fectively replying to anything that the Baltimore Sun may say in behalf of Taft; that Is, to turn back to the col umns of the Sun Itself within the past twelve months and there find ample refutation of all that It freely utters now. There is nothing which Taft ad vocates which the Sun has not earnest ly antagonized whether It be Protec tion, Paternalism, Imperialism, or In terference with the syBtems of suf frage In the Southern States and it would not be a bad idea for the Demo cratic committee of Maryland to make up a campaign book containing ex tracts from the Sun's editorials In the recent past scoring all the policies for which Mr. Taft and the Republican party are standing to-day. There is no better way to answer a man than out of his own mouth." Served as coffee, the new coffee sub stitute known to grocers everywhere as Dr. Shoop's Health Coffee, will trick even a coffee expert. Not a grain of real coffee In it either. Pure healthful toasted grains, malt, nuts, etc., have been so cleverly blended as to give a wonderfully satisfying coffee taste and flavor. And It Is "made In a minute," too. . No tedious 20 to 30 minutes boll 'ng. . li. C. Wooten. v , DeWltt'i Little Early Risers, safe, easy, pleasant, sure, little liver pills. HOia or Armneiq uru va. FAYETTEVILLE MARBLE AND GRANITE WORK!) Strictly First-class Work. Call at my yard or write for prices Kespectruiiy, K. L. BEM8BUEG, Proprietor, f avetteville, N. O CRIMSON CLOVER," 7 BIG BOSTON LETTUCE. OTHER Seasonable Seeds. H. R. Home & Sons VIOLET AMMONIA 80 REFESHING FOR TH! TOILET AND BATH 15 AND 25 CTS. VIOLET WITCH-HAZEL DELIGHTFUL AFTER SHAVING 25 CENTS. B. E. SEDBERRY'S SON, Palace Pharmacy. OUR AIM IS TO GIVE THE BEST POSSIBLE SERVICE, AND BEST IN QUALITY OF GOODS. WE SOLICIT YOUR ORDERS. . J. COOK & CO. JRUQGI8T8 AND PHARMACI8T8. Next P. O. 'Phone 14 GO TO THE DE-AWAKE CRUG STORE I YOU'LL G ET WHAT jE DOCTOR ORDERS ON THE BUSY CORNER. KING DRUG COMPANY. McDuffie Diug Store. a 1 MacKethan's On The Square. l RHEUMAID !! i' WILL DRIVE AWAY (I j MOSQUITOES. 11 Price 25c. ii MacKETHAN & CO. ft 'Phone 831. brurglsts. NEW GOODSI Mt have Juit received a well Mlected assortment of HAIR BRUSHES AND COMBS which we are telling at email profit. Other new goods In TOOTH BRUSHES, WHISK BROOMS, BATH MITTS, SPONGES, ETC. ftrmfield's Drug Store. Hotel LaFayttte Building.' . Prescription Filled only by Reg istered Prugglet. 11
Fayetteville Observer [Weekly, 1880-1919] (Fayetteville, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Sept. 3, 1908, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75