Decatur Democrat, Volume 51, Number 31, Decatur, Adams County, 30 July 1908 — Page 2

-"" ' ~TI ! TAFT OUTLINES PARTY POLICIES Cincinnati, July 28— It is a happy I crowd that invaded this city today to take pert and pay honor to a distinguished citizen. At two o’clock Hon. W. H. Taft was formally notified that In Chicago, on July 16, he was honored by being named the Republican candidate for president. Cincinnati keenly feels the honor conferred upon that city, and today are making glad with those who are present from nearly every state in the Union. The exercises took place at the home of Brother Charley. Taft. Senator William Warner of Missouri, delivered the speech of notification, to which reply was made by th e presidential candidate. He spoke as follow’s: Senator Warner and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am deeply sensible of the honor which the Republican National Convention has conferred on me ■in the nomination which you formally [tender. I accept it with full appreciajtlon of the responsibility it imposes. Gentlemen, the strength of the Republican cause in the campaign at [hand is in the fact that we represent the policies essentia! to the reform of ■known abuses, to the continuance of liberty and true prosperity, and that •we are determined, as our platform unequivocally declares, to maintain them and carry them on. For more than ten years this ( country passed through an epoch of material development far beyond any that ever occurred in the world before. In its course, certain evils crept in. Some prominent and influential members of the community, spurred by financial success and in their hurry for greater wealth, became •unmindful of the common rules of business honesty and fidelity and of the limitations imposed by law upon their action. This became known. The revelations of the breaches of trust, the disclosures as to rebates and discriminations by railways, the accumulating evidence of the violation of the anti-trust law by a number of corporations, the overissue of stocks and bonds on interstate railways for the unlawful enriching of directors and for the purpose of concentrating control of railways in one management, all quickened the conscience of the people, and brought on a moral awakening among them that boded well for the future of the country. What Roosevelt Has Done. The man who formulated the expression of the popular conscience and who led the movement for practical reform was Theodore Roosevelt. He laid down the doctrine that the rich violator of the law should be as amenable to restraint and punishment as the offender without wealth and without influence, and be proceeded by recommending legislation and directing executive action to make that principle good tn actual performance. President Roosevelt directed suits to ■be brought and prosecutions to be instituted under the anti-trust law, to enforce its provisions against the most powerful of the industrial corporations. He pressed to passage the pure food law and the meat inspection law in the Interest of the health of the public, clean business methods and great ultimate benefit to the trades themselves. He recommended the passage of a law, which the Republican convention has since specifically approved, restricting the future Issue of stocks and bonds by Interstate railways to such as may be authorized by Federal authority. Chief Function of Next Administration The chief function of the next Administration, in my judgment, is distinct from, and a progressive development of that which has been performed by President Roosevelt The chief function of the next Administration is to complete and perfect the machinery by which these standards may be maintained, by which the lawbreakers may be promptly restrained and punished, but which shall operate with sufficient accuracy and dispatch to interfere with legitimate business as little as possible. Such machinery is not now adequate. Physical Valuation of Railways. i Some of the suggestions of the Demo cratic platform relate really to this subordinate and ancillary machinery to which I have referred. Take for Instance the so-called “physical valuation of railways.” It is clear that the sum of all rates or receipts of a railway, less proper expenses, should be limited to a fair profit upon the reasonable value of Its property, and that if the sum exceeds this measure, it ought to be reduced. The difficulty in enforcing the principle Is in ascertaining what is the reasonable value of the company’s property, and in fixing what is a fair profit It is clear that the physical value of a railroad and its plant Is pn element to be given weight in determining Its full value; but as President Roosevelt in his Indianapolis speech and the Supreme Court have in effect pointed out, the value of the railroad as a going concern, including Its good will, due to efficiency of service and many other circumstances, may be much greater than the value of Its tan glble property, and it is the former that measures the investment on which a fair profit must be allowed. Then, too, the question what is a fair profit is one Involving not only the rate of Interest ' usually earned on normally safe investznents, but also a sufficient allowance to make up Tor the risk of loes both ©f capital and interest in the original outlay. These considerations win haw

. I I justified the company in imposing I chargee b'gh enough to secure a fair I income on ihs» enterprise as a whole.! ' The securities at market prices will have passed into the hands of subsequent purchasers from the original in- ’ vestors. Such circumstances should • properly nffect the decision of the triI bunal engaged in determining whether I the totality of rates charged is reason-1 able or excessive. To ignore them might so seriously and unjustly impair settled values as to destroy all ■ hope of restoring confidence and forever end the inducement for investment in new railroad construction which, in returning prosperous times, is sure to be essential to our material progress. From what has been said, the propel conclusions would seem to be that in attempting to determine whether the entire schedule of rates of a railway is excessive, the physical valuation of th« road Is a relevant and important but not necessarily a controlling factor. I am confident that the fixing of rates on the principles suggested above would not materially impair the present market values of railroad securities in most cases, for I believe that the normal Increase in the value of railroad properties, especially in their terminals, will more than make up for the possible overcapitalization in earlier years. In some cases, doubtless, it will be found that overcapitalization is made an excuse for excessive rates, and then they should be reduced; but the consensus of opinion seems to be that the railroad rates generally in this country are reasonably low. Conclusion That There Should Be Physical Valuation. I have discussed this, with some degree of detail, merely to point out that the valuation by the Interstate Commerce Commission of the tangible property of a railroad is proper and may from time to time be necessary in settling certain issues which may come before them, and that no evil or injustice can come from valuation in such cases, if it be understood that the result Is to be used for a just purpose, and the right to a fair profit under all the circumstances of the investment is recognized. National Control of Interstate Commerce Corporation. Another suggestion in respect to subordinate aud ancillary machinery necessary to carry out Republican policies is that of the Incorporation under National law or the licensing by National license or enforced registry of companies engaged in Interstate trade. The fact is that nearly all corporations doing a commercial business are engaged in interstate commerce, and if they all were required to take out a Federal license or a Federal charter, the burden upon the Interstate business of the country would become intolerable. It is necessary, therefore, to devise some means for classifying and insuring Federal supervision of such corporations as have the power and temptation to effect restraints of interstate trade and monopolies. Such corporations constitute a very small percentage of all engaged in interstate business. Construction of Anti-Trust Law. The possible operation of the antitrust law under existing rulings of the Supreme Court has given rise to suggestions for its necessary amendment to prevent its application to cases which it is believed were never in the contemplation of the framers of the statute. Take two instances: A merchhnt or manufacturer engaged in a legitimate business that covers certain States, wishes to sell his business and his good will, and so In the terms of the sale obligates himself to the purchaser not to go into the same business in those States. Such a Restraint of trade has always been enforced at common law. Again, the employees of an interstate railway combine and enter upon a peaceable and lawful strike to secure better wages. At common law this was not a restraint of trade or commerce or a violation of the rights of the company or of the public. Neither case ought to be made a violation of the anti-trust law. My own Impression is that the Supreme Court would hold that neither of these instances is within its inhibition, but, if they are to be so regarded, general legislation amending the law is necessary. The proposal to compel every corporation to sell its commodities at the same price the country over, allowing for transportation, is utterly impracticable, z 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 is evidence that it is attempting an unlawful monopoly, and justifies conviction under the anti-trust law; but the proposal to supervise the business of corporations in such away as to fix the price of commodities and compel the sale at such price is as absurd and socialistic a plank as was ever Inserted in a Democratic political platform. Advantage of Combination of Capital. 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 a machine to the economical and more rapid manufacture of what in old times was made by hand. The Government should not interfere with one any more than the other. What la an Unlawful Trust? When, however, such combinations are not based on any economic principle, but are made merely for the purpose of controlling the market, to maintain or raise prices, restrict output and drive out competitors, the public derives no benefit and we have a monopoly. It is important, therefore,

I that such large aggregations' of capital and combination should be conI trolled so that the public may have the advantage of reasonable prices and that the avenues of enterprise may be kept open to the individual and the smaller corporation wishing to engage in business. Many enterprises have been organ ized on the theory that mere aggregation of all, or nearly all. existing plants In a line of manufacture, without regard to economy of production, destroys competition. They have, most of them, .gone into bankruptcy. Competition in a profitable business will not be affected by the mere aggrega tion of many existing plants under one company, unless the company thereby effects great economy, the benefit ol which it shares with the public, or takes some illegal method to avoid competition and to perpetuate a hold on the business. Proper Treatment of Trosts. Unlawful trusts should be restrained with all the efficiency of injunctive process, and the persons engaged in maintaining them should be punished with all the severity of criminal prosecution, in order that the methods pursued In the operation of their business shall be brought within the law. Tc destroy them and to eliminate the wealth they represent from the producing capital of the country would entail enormous loss, and would throw out of employment myriads of workingmen and workingwomen. Such a result is wholly unnecessary to the accomplishment of the needed reform, and will inflict upon the innocent fat greater punishment than upon the guilty. Destructive Policy of Democratic Platform. The Democratic platform does not propose to destroy the plants of the trusts physically, but it proposes to do the same thing in a different way. The business of this country is largely dependent on a protective system of tariffs. The business done by many of the so called “trusts” is protected with the other business of the country. The Democratic platform proposes to take off the tariff in all articles coming into competition with those produced by the so called “trusts,” and to put them on the free list. If such a course would be utterly destructive of their business, as is intended, it would not only destroy the trusts, but all of their smaller competitors. The ruthless and Impracticable character of the proposition grows plainer as its effects upon the whole community are realized. To take the course suggested by the Democratic platform in these matters is to involve the entire community, Innocent as it is, in the punishment of the guilty, while our policy is to stamp out the specific evil. This difference between the policies of the two great parties is of especial importance in view of the present condition of business. After ten years of the most remarkable material development and prosperity, there came a financial stringency, a panic and an industrial depression. This was brought about not only by the enormous expansion of business plants and business investments which could not be readily converted, but also by the waste of capital, in extravagance of living, in wars and other catastrophles. Republican Doctrine of Protection. The Republican doctrine of protection, as definitely announced by the Republican convention of this year and by previous conventions, is that a tariff shall be imposed on all imported products, whether of the factory, farm or mine, sufficiently great to equal the difference between the cost of production abroad and at home, and that this difference should, of course, Include the difference between the higher wages paid in this country and the wages paid abroad and embrace a reasonable profit to the American producer. A system of protection thus adopted and put in force has led to the establishment of a rate of wages here that has greatly enhanced the standard of living of the laboring man. It is the policy of the Republican party permanently to continue that standard of living. In 1897 the Dingley Tariff Bill was passed, under which we have had. as already said, a period of enormous prosperity. Necessity For Revision of Tariff. The consequent material development has greatly changed the conditions under which many articles described by the schedules of the tariff ■are now produced. The tariff in a number of the schedules exceeds the difference between the cost of production of such articles abroad and at home, including a reasonable profit to the American producer. The excess over that difference serves no useful purpose, but offers a temptation to those who would monopolize the production and the sale of such articles in this country, to profit by the excessive rate. On the other hand, there are other schedules In which the tariff is not sufficiently high to give the measure of protection which they should receive upon Republican principles, and as to those the tariff should be raised. A revision of the tariff undertaken upon this principle, which is at the basis of our present business system, begun promptly upon the incoming of the new administration, and considered at a special session with the preliminary investigations already begun by the appropriate committees of the House and Senate, will make the disturbance of business incident to such a change as little as possible. Labor and What the Republican Party Has Done For IL We come now to the question of labor. One important phase of the policies of the present Administration has been an anxiety to secure for the wageearner an equality of opportunity and such positive statutory protection as • i

■ ! shall place him on a level in dealing -’ with his employer. The Republican *! party has passed an employers’ liabili ity act for interstate railroads, and has ■ established an eight hour law for govI ernment employees and on government ■ construction. The essence of the reform effected by the former is the abolition of the fellow-servant rule, and the Introduction of the comparei tive negligence theory by which an em ployee injured in the service of his employer does not lose his right to rei cover l>ecause of slight negligence on i his part. Then there Is the act providing for compensation for injury to government employees, together with : the various statutes requiring safety : appliances upon interstate commerce I railroads for the protection of their i employees, and limiting the hours of 1 their employment These are all in--1 stances of the desire of the Republican party to do justice to the wageearner. Doubtless a more comprehensive measure for compensation of gov- ' ernment employees will be adopted in j the future. I To give to employees their proper position In such a controversy, to enable them to maintain themselves , against employers having great capital, they may well unite, because in ’ union there is strength and without it each individual laborer and employee I would be helpless. The promotion of industrial peace tthrough the Instrumentality of the trade agreement is ! often one of the results of such union when intelligently conducted. There is a large body of laborers, . however, skilled and unskilled, who ' are not organized into unions. Their rights before the law are exactly the same as those of the union men, and are to be protected with the same care and watchfulness. In order to Induce their employer Into a compliance with their request for changed terms of employment, workmen have the right to strike in a body. They have a right to use such persuasion as they may, provided it does not reach the point of duress, to lead their reluctant co-laborers to join them In their union against their employer, and they have a right, if they choose, to accumulate funds to support those engaged in a strike, to delegate to officers the power to direct the action of the union, and to withdraw themselves and tbeir associates from dealings with, or giving custom to those with whom they are In controversy. What Labor Cannot Lawfully Do. What they have not the right to do Is to injure their employer’s property, to injure their employer’s business by use of threats or methods of physical duress against those who would work for him, or deal with him, or by carrying on what is sometimes known as a secondary boycott against his customers or those with whom he deals. It has been claimed that injunctions do not issue to protect anything but property rights, and that business is not a property right; but such a proposition is wholly inconsistent with all the decisions of the courts. The Supreme Court of the United States says that the injunction is a remedy to protect property or rights of a pecuniary nature, and we may well submit to the considerate judgment of all laymen whether the right of a man in his business Is not as distinctly a right of a pecuniary nature as the right to his horse or his house or the stock of goods on his shelf; and the instances in which injunctions to protect business have been upneld by all courts are so many that it is futile further to discuss the proposition. It is difficult to tell the meaning of the Democratic platform upon this subject. It says: “Questions of judicial practice have arisen especially in connection with industrial disputes. We deem that the parties to all judicial proceedings should be treated with rigid impartiality, and that injunctions should not be Issued in any cases in which Injunctions would not issue if no industrial dispute were involved.” This declaration is disingenuous. It seems to have been loosely drawn with the especial purpose of rendering it susceptible to one interpretation by one set of men and to a diametrically opposite interpretation by another. It does not aver that injunctions should not issue in industrial disputes, but only that they should not issue merely because they are industrial disputes, and yet those responsible for the declaration must have known that no one has ever maintained that the fact that a dispute was industrial gave any basis for issuing an Injunction in reference thereto. The declaration seems to be drawn in its present vague and ambiguous shape in order to persuade some people that it is a declaration against the issuing of injunctions in any industrial dispute, while at the same time it may be possible to explain to the average plain citizen who objects to class distinctions that no such intention exists at all. Our position is clear and unequivocal. We are anxious to prevent even an appearance of any injustice to labor in the Issuance of Injunctions, not in a spirit of favoritism to one set of our fellow citizens, but of justice to all of ■ our fellow citizens. The reason for exercising or refusing to exercise the power’ of Injunction must be found !n the character of the unlawful injury and not In the character or class of the persons who inflict this injury. ■ The man who has a business which Is being unlawfully Injured Is entitled to the remedies which the law has always given him, no matter who has inflicted the injuries. Otherwise, we shall have class legislation unjust in principle and likely to sap the foundations of a free government Notice and Hearing Before Issue of Injunction. I coma now to the question of no- . ace before issuing an Injunction. It la

a fundamental rule of general jurisprudence that no man shall be affected by a judicial proceeding without notice and bearing. This rule, however, has sometimes had an exception in the issuing of temporary restraining orders ’ commanding a defendant in effect to maintain the status quo until a hear-: ing. Such a process should issue only | In rare cases where the threatened, change of the status quo would inflict i irreparable injury If time were taken to give notice and a summary hearing. The unlawful injury usual in industrial disputes, such as I have described. does not become formidable except ! after sufficient time in which to give the defendants notice and a hearing. I do not mean to say that there may not be cases even In industrial disputes where a restraining order might properly be Issued without notice, but, generally, I think it is otherwise. Ift some State courts, and in fewer Federal courts, the practice of issuing a temporary restraining order without notice merely to preserve the- statu* qua on the theory that It won’t hurt anybody, has been too common. Many of us recall that the practice has been pursued In other than Industrial disputes, as, for instance, in corporate and stock controversies like those over the Erie railroad, in which a stay order without notice was regarded as a step of great advantage to the one who secured it, and a corresponding disadvantage to the one against whom it was secured. Indeed, the chances of doing injustice on an ex-parte application are much increased over those when a heariug is granted, and there may be circumstances under which it may affect the defendant to his detriment In the case of a lawful strike, the sending of a formidable document restraining a number of defendants from doing a great many different things which the plaintiff avers they are threatening to do. often so discourages men always reluctant to go into a strike from continuing what is their lawful right This has made the laboring man feel that an injustice is done in the issuing of a writ without notice. I conceive that in the treatment of this question it is the duty of the citizen and the legislator to view the subject from the standpoint of the man who believes himself to be unjustly treated, as well as from that of the community at large. I have suggested the remedy of returning in such cases to the original practice under the old statute of the United States and the rules in equity adopted by the Supreme Court, which did not permit the issuing of an injunction without notice. In this respect, the Republican Convention has adopted another remedy, that, without going so far, promises to be efficacious. Effect of Jury Trial. Under such a provision a recalcitrant witness who refuses to obey a subpoena may insist on a jury trial before the court can determine that he received the subpoena. A citizen summoned as a juror and refusing to obey the writ when brought into court must be tried by another jury to determine whether he got the summons. Such a provision applies not alone to injunctions, but to every order which the court issues against persons. A suit may be tried in the court of first instance and carried to the Court of Appeals, and thence to the Supreme Court and a judgment and decree entered and an order Issued, and then if the decree involves the defendant’s doing anything or not doing anything, and he disobeys it, the plaintiff who has pursued his remedies in lawful course for years must to secure his rights, undergo the uncertainties and the delays of a jury trial before he cau enjoy that which Is his right by the decision of the highest court of the land I say without hesitation that such a change will greatly Impair the indispensable power and authority of the courts. Securing to the public the benefits of the new statutes enacted in the present Administration, the ultimate instrumentality to be resorted to is the courts of the Unit ed States. If now their authority is to be weakened in a manner never known in the history of the jurisprudence of England or America, except in the constitution of Oklahoma, how can we expect that such statutes will have efficient enforcement? Those who advocate this Intervention of a jury in such cases seem to suppose that this change in some way will inure only to the benefit of the poor workingman. As a matter of fact, the person who will secure chief advantage from it is the wealthy and unscrupulous defendant, able to employ astute and cunning counsel and anxious to avoid justice. The administration of justice lies at the foundation of government The maintenance of the authority of the courts is essential unless we are prepared to embrace anarchy. Never in the history of the country has there been such an insidious attack upon the Judicial system as the prop -sal to interject a jury trial between all orders of the court made after full hearing and the enforcement of such orders. The Currency System. The late panic disclosed a lack of elasticity in our financial system. This has been provisionally met by an act of the present Congress permitting the issue of additional emergency bank notes, and insuring their withdrawal when the emergency has passed by a high rate of taxation. It is drawn in conformity with the present system of bank note currency, but varies from it In certain respects by authorizing the use of commercial paper and bonds of good credit, as well as United States bonds, as security for its redemption. It te expressly but a temporary measure and contains a provision for the appointment of a currency commission to devise and recommend a new and reformed system of currency. This inadequacy of our present currency system, due to changed conditions and •normous expansion, la generally tw

' ognized. The Republican platform , states that we must have a “mo re i tic and adaptable system to meet 6 I requirements of agriculturists, ma I factnrers, merchants and business generally, must be automatic in i tion, recognizing the fluctuations i a ; terest rates,” in which every q 0 I shall be as good as gold, and I shall prevent rather than aid fi naii i stringency in bringing on a panic. i Postal Saving* Bank and |t s tages. In addition to this, the R S p, lbll platform recommends the adoption a postal savings bank system in whl of course, the Government would eome responsible to the depositors the payment of principal and inter It is thought that the Goverun guaranty will bring out of hoard places much money which may turned into wealth producing cap! and that it will be a great incentive thrift in the many small places tn country having now no savings bi facilities which are reached by the p Office Department It will bring every one, however remote from fin cial centers, a place of perfect saf for deposits, with Interest return. Objections to Democratic Proposal Enforce Insurance of Bank Deposr The Democratic platform rec, mends a tax upon National banks t upon such State batiks as may co in, in the nature of enforced insurai to raise a guaranty fund to pay the positors of any bank which fails, r State banks can be included in sue scheme under the constitution is in the twilight zone of States rig and Federalism so frequently dimtn the meaning and purpose of the pn ises of the platform. If they come under such a system, they must net sarlly lie brought within the clos National control, and so they m really cease to be State banks and come National banks. The proposition is to tax the hon and prudent banker to make up for dishonesty and imprudence of otht It the proposal were adopted exac as the Democratic platform sugges it would bring the whole banking t, tem of the country down in ruin. The Republican party prefers I postal savings bank as one tried, sa and known to be effective, r.nd reaching many more people now wi out banking facilities than the n system proposed. Philippines. In the Philippines the experiment a national assembly has justified self, both as an assistance in the g ernment of the islands and as an « cation in the practice of self-gove ment to the people of the Islands. The proposition of the Democra platform is to turn over the islai as soon as a stable government is tablished. This has been establish The proposal then is in effect to ti them over at once. Such action i lead to ultimate chaos in the island The Rights and Progress of the Neg The Republican platform refers these amendments to the Constitnti that were passed by the Republic party for the protection of the neg The negro, tn the forty years since was freed from slavery, has made markable progress. He is becoming more and more valuable member of t communities in which he lives. I education of the negro is being : panded and improved in every wi The best men of both races, at t North as well as at the South, ought rejoice to see growing up among t Southern people an influential eleme disposed to encourage the negro in I hard struggle for industrial Indepet cnce and assured political status. T Republican platform, adopted at Cl cago, explicitly demands justice for I men without regard to race or coll and just as explicitly declares for t enforcement, and without reservatic in letter and spirit of the Thirteen! Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendmet to the Constitution. Publicity of Campaign Contributio and Expenditures. Another plank of the Democrai platform refers to the failure of t Republican Convention to express I opinion in favor of the publicity contributions received and expent tures made in elections. Here aga we contrast our opponents’ promts with our own acts. A resident of Me York has been selected as treasurer the Republican National Commlttt who was treasurer of the Republic: State Committee when Govern Hughes was elected in New York, ai who made a complete statement wit in twenty days after the election, required by the New York law. of tl contributions received by him and tl expenditures made by him or und his authority in connection with th election. His residence and the dl charge of his duties in the State 1 New York subject him to the law ■ that State as to all receipts of tl treasury of the National Coinmitt frem whatever source and as to all I disbursements. His returns will 1 under the obligations and penalties i the law, and a misstatement by him : the filing of a false account will su ject him to prosecution for perjui and violation of the statute. Os cours under the Federal law, he is not pe mitted to receive any contributloi from corporations. Income Tax. The Democratic platform demanf two constitutional amendments, ot providing for an income tax, and ti other for the election of Senators o the people. In my judgment a amendment to the Constitution for a income tax is not necessary. I belie l that an income tax, when the prote tive system of cwrtoms and the inte ual revenue tax shall not furnish 1 come enough for governmental need can and should be devised which ui der the decisions of the Supren: Court will conform to the Constitute