Richmond Palladium (Daily), Volume 33, Number 192, 25 August 1908 — Page 7

PAGE SEVEN.

The Trust Question Dealt With By William Jennings Bryan at Notification of John W. Kern Today As Is Customary He Bitterly Arraigns Republicans for Stand and Pays Respects to Views of His Opponent, William Howard Taft Nebraskan Says He Would Have Competition Restored.

Indianapolis, Aug. 25. In his prepared address before the Kern notification meeting this afternoon, William J. Bryan, speaking on the subject tof "Trusts," said: 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 Democratic opposition and enforced it after Democratic dereliction. It has been a wholesome instrument for good in the hands of a wise and fearless administration. But experience has shown that its effectiveness can be .strengthened and 4Js real . o.bjects better attained by such amendments as will give to the federal government greater supervision and control over, and secure greater publicity in, the management of that class of corporations en

gaged 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 penitentiary punishment for those who conspire together in restraint of trade. Ever since the enactment of the law, ; with the exception of four years, the Republican party hasi controlled the executive department of the government, and, during two years of the four,, it controlled the house of representatives. Instead of Democratic derlfcf Iob, the Democratic party has been urging, year after year, the strict enforcement of that law, and the Republican party has been explaining year after year why it was impossible to enforce it. Instead of being 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, 1a 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 aoon after, that it might have prevented a Republican victory if 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 business seriously Interrupted. The president has done something toward the enforcement of the law.but not nearly enough, and the Republican leaders hare thwarted him at every point. Finally the president became so exasperated that he sent to congress a message which shocked Republican leaders by the fierceness of its denunciation of. the predatory Interests. The very convention that spoke In its platform of the administration as "a wise and fearless one," was composed largely of the senators and members of congress who boldly opposed every effort to free the people from the Clutches of the favor-seeking corporation!. - The Republican platform says that experience has shown that the effectiveness of the anti-trust law could he strengthened by amendments which will give the federal government greater supervision and control over, and greater publicity as to, the management of those Interstate commerce corporations which have the power and opportunity to affect monopolies. That Is all. No pointing out of remedies ; BO outlining of a plan for more effective legislation simply a general statement that promises nothing in particular. And Mr. Taft's speech of acceptance Is even weaker than the plat form. Ho gives no evidence of having studied the question or of comprehending the iniquities of a monopoly. You look In vain for his notification speech for any sign of Indignation at what thetrusts have been doing or for evidence of teal in their prosecution. He has, for several years, been the Intimate official companion of the president, but he hes caught none of the fire which the president manifested In his message of last January. - - If, In the presence of an aroused peo ple, and in the heat of a campaign, the Republican party contents Itself with a colorless platform on this subject, what can we expect in the way of activity when the exlficies of the Campaign1 are passed? n, when Mr. j Taft is appealing to the Roosevelt ' republicans, , his discussion of the 1 Subject is so lifeless and his manner I so apologetic and apathetic, what rea- j on have we to expect either vigor in the enforcement of the law or earnestBess In the search for additional remedies? In his speech delivered about a year ago announcing his candidacy, Mr. Taft suggested that the present law be ao amended as to permit "reasonable" restraint of trade. Such an amendment would be as absurd as an amendment to the law against burglary, limiting the law to cases in which more than two burglars entered the house at one time or took more than half they found. In his j notification speech he suggests nation-; al Incorporation -a remedy which would make conditions worse because, without adding to the power of con gress to prevent monopolies. It would deprive the states of the power to protect their own people. Now, let me contrast the Democratic platform with the Republican platform. Nowhere Is the difference in the temper of the parties more noticeable; nowhere Is the difference In the method of dealing with Questions more manifest. Our platform says : "A private monopoly is Indefensible and Intolerable. We therefore favor the vigorous enforcement of the criminal law against such additional ladtlattont a. mAjr :be ne&-sarjr.- to

make It" impossible for a private' monopoly to exist in the United States. Among the additional remedies, we specify three: First, a law preventing a duplication of directors among competing corporations; Becond, a license system which will, without abridging the right of each state to create corporations, or Its right to regulate as it will foreign corporations doing business within its limits, make it necessary for a manufacturing or trading corporation engaged in Interstate commerce to take out a federal llcensje before It shall be permitted to control as much as twenty-five per cent of the product in which it deals, the license to protect the public from watered stock and to prohibit the control by such corporation of more than 50 per cent of the total amount of any

product consumed in the United States; and, third, a law compelling such licensed corporations to sell to all purchasers in all parts of the country on the same terms, after makingdoe allowance for cost of transportation." Here is a plain, candid statement of the party's position. There is no quibbling, no evasion, no ambiguity. A private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable. It is bad bad in principle, and fad in practice. No apology can be offered for it, and no people should endure it. Our party's position Is entirely In harmony with the position of Jefferson. With a knowledge of human nature which few men have equalled 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 private use pf government, or strive to secure special privileges at the expense of the public. I have, In discussing the tariff question, 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 the trusts and bring about the dissolution of many monopolistic combines. But we are not satisfied merely with the lessening of extortion or with the dissolution of some of the trusts. Because the private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable, the Democratic party favors its extermination. It pledges Itself to the vigorous en forcement of the criminal law against trust magnates and officials. It is impossible for the Republican party to enforce the present criminal law against trust officials; these officials are Intimately connected with the Republican party in the present campaign. Take, for Instance, the chairman of the Republican speakers' committee, Mr. Dupont, cf Delaware. He is the defendant in a suit which the government brought and is new prosecuting. Mr. Dupont Is charged with violation Of the anti-trust law. Why should he ' be put on the executive committee and then be given control of the speaking part of the campaign? If you talk to a . Republican leader about penitentiary punishment for offenders, he favors fining the corporation, on the ground that It is impossible to convict Individuals, but when yon 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 Instead of extermination, but after years cZ j experience the people have learned that the trusts control the government. Our platform does not stop with the enforcement of the law; It demands the enactment of such additional legislation as may be necessary to make it impossible for a private monoply to ; exist in the United States. The Democratic party does not con- j tent.. Itself with a definition of ,the 1 wrong' or with a denunciation of it. It proceeds to outline remedies. The first is a law preventing a duplication of directors among competing corporations. No one can object to this rem- ; edy unless he is in sympathy with the ' trusts, rather than with the people j who are victimized by the trusts, j There is no easier way of stifling competition than to make one board of di- j rectors serve for a number of com- j peting corporations. It Is not neces- j sary for corporations to enter Into an i agreement 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 stated to the platform it Is: "A license system which will, without abridging the right of each state to create corporations, or Its right to regulate as it will foreign corporations doing business within its limits, make It necessary for a manufacturing or trading corporation engaged in interstate commerce to take out a federal license before it 6hall be permitted to control as much as 25 per cent of the product in which it deals, the license to protect the public from watered stock and to prohibit the control by such corporation of more than 50 per cent of the total amount of any product consumed in the United States." It will be noticed, in the first place, that care was 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 cotporatrons croiirs ousiAfcs 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 for the exercise by congress of the power vested in it to regulate interstate commerce. As long as a coloration confines itself to the state in which it is created, congress cannot interfere with it; but when the corporation engages In interstate, commerce, congress is the only power that can regulate its interstate business. In proposing, the exercise of this power, the Democratic platform Is not asserting a new doctrine. In January, 1896, a Republican house of representatives adopted a resolution calling upon Hon. Judson Harmon, then attorney general of the United States, now the Democratic candidate for governor in Ohio, to report what steps, if 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 people against the same. On the 8th day of February he submitted a reply, in which he described the steps which were being taken to enforce the law, and recommended the enactment of further legislation. I call special attention to the following words: "Congress may make it unlawful to ship from one state to another, in carrying out, or attempting to carry out, the designs of such (state) organizations, articles produced, owned or controlled by them or any of their members or agents."

His recommendation embodies the very Idea which our plan now proposes to carry out. We want to make It unlawful for a corporation to use the instrumentalities of interstate commerce for the carrying out of a monopolistic 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 to 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 mails of the United States to be used by the trusts as an agency for the extermination of competition. Congress has already exercised this power to exterminate lotteries. Why not exercise it to make private monopolies Impossible? - 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 conspiracy against trade and commerce, then the only question is as to the means to be employed to prevent such shipment. The license system presents an easy way of regulating such corporations 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 United States and prosecute a great corporation; so difficult is it, that although the Sherman anti-trust law has been in force for eighteen years, no trust magnate has been sent to the penitentiary for violating the law, al- j though in a few cases the court has found corporations guilty of a violation of the law. In the enforcement of a penalty, the government must seek the defendant; by the use of the license system, 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 of any article used in this country as to be able to regulate the price and terms of sale, and as the proportion controlled determines the power of the trust for harm, it has seemed best to use proportionate control as the basis of this plan, and 23 per cent has been fixed arbitrarily as the proportion at which the line should be drawn. A corporation which controls less than 25 per cent of the product in which It deals, may, In extraordinary cases, exert a perceptible influence In controlling the price of the product and the terms of sale. but as a rule a corporation must con- , trol more than that percentage of the total product 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 discrimination against the larger corporation, but a recognition of the fact that rules are necessary in the case of corporations controlling a large percentage of the product which are not necessary In the case of smaller corporations. Probably not 1 per cent of the corporations engaged In interstate 'commerce would, be required to take out a license under this plan possibly not one-half of 1 percent and yet what a . protection the remaining 99 per cent would find in the law requiring a license In the case of the larger ones! The license, however, would not prevent the growth of the corporations licensed. It would simply bring them tinder the eye of the federal government 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 eountry on the same terms, after making due allowance for cost of transportation. Mr. Taft attacks this restriction as "utterly impracticable.' 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, whtre it hM cjpQinetitarmal a leJftpd

unprofitable f-Vice, and In andfher rart 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." If such an act is now unlawful, why 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 is aimed. The plan proposed in the Democratic platform brings the corporation under the surveillance of the government when it has reached the danger point, and hereafter 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 up violations of the law's provisions. "Mr. Taft is unduly alarmed at this proposal or else he entirely fails to comprehend the details cf the plan. He says: "To supervise the business of corporations in such a way 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." 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 antf-trust law for a corporation to attempt to destroy a competitor by selling at a low and unprofitable 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? Merely In the fact that ours can be enforced. According to Mr. Taft's logic, a plan is not socialistic which is not effective, but the same would be socialistic If made effective. Why should a corporation supplying twenty millions cf people for a corporation controlling 25 per cent of the total product supplies onefourth, or more, of our population should sufch 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 cost of transportation being taken into consideration there is a 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 undersell a small competitor in the small competitor's territory the price being maintained elsewhere until the small competitor is driven to bankruptcy, and then the price is raised. That has been done over and over again. It is open and notorious; and yet, with the Republican party in complete power at Washington, what effort has been made to prevent this. This remedy, although vehemently denounced by Mr.' TaJt, will appeal to the average man as not only very salutary, but very necessary. Fifty per cent is fixed as the maximum limit. When a corporation controls 50 per cent of the total product, it supplies forty millions of people 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 45 or 50 per cent of the product, may by wellknown methods, frequently effect a monopoly and stamp out competition In a part of the country as completely as If it controlled 60 or 70 per cent thereof." Why. then, does he not propose a lower limit? If the control of 45 pet cent may constitute a monopoly, why does he not suggest that as a maximum? II cannot 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 Secretary Taft Is that he spends so much time trying to discover excuses for Inaction in trust matters "that he has none left for the consideration of effective remedies. He spends more time uttering warnings against remedies proposed than he does in pointing out the evils to be remedied or in suggested 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 a 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 Interfere with one any mere than the other, when such aggregations of capital are legitimate and are properly controlled, 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 sufficiently large to enable the producer to utilise by-products and take advantage of all the economies that large prodnction makes possible. It is Just here that the trust magnates attempt to confuse the public mind, and Mr. Taft has unconsciously adopted their language. Let the issue be made plain; let the distinction be accurately drawn; let the respective positions of the parties be fzTl? understood- .TJie DetnQgratie

party' aoes hot opVoseaTI corporations; on the contrary, it recognizes that the corporation can render an Important service to the public. The Democratic party wants to employ every Instrumentality that can be employed for the advancement of the common good; but the Democratic party draws the

line at the private monopoly, and Ie-j Clares that a private monopoly cannot be justified on either economic or pol itlcal grounds. From an economic standpoint, a m4 nopoly is objectionable. The moment a corporation secures a practical monopoly in the production or sale of any article, certain evils appear which outweigh any good that can come from large production or control. Wherever private monopolies exist, certain irre sistible tendencies manifest themselves. First, it raises prices this is the first thing thought of for the Increasing of profits. Then, in nroportlon 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 corporation are increased. Third, a reduction In the quality of the product affords an opportunity for Increasing profits.. Fourth, reduction in wages follows wherever conditions will permit. Competition protects the purchaser, for when a number of Independent producers stand ready to supply him with what he needs, he can choose between them and bu-y from the one who offers the best product at the lowest price. He is also protected in quality because those who compete for the opportunity 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. Competition 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 has the best assurance of obtaining a fair recompense ; when there Is but one employer, the employe must take the price offered, because he will lose the advantage of his experience if hemust go out to find a different kind of employment. " The business men of the country have felt the pressure of the trusts. The retailer has been compelled to enter into contracts which restrict his management of his own affairs, he has found the terms of sale and payment changed to his disadvantage, and he ha been forced to carry more asd more of the risks of trade. He Is convinced that there are no good trusts and that his only safety is in the Democratic 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 monopoly secured by a corporation the less they are needed. We have no more Intelligent class than the representatives of commerce, and their retirement from the road would mean a se rious loss to the country, while a few promoters would be the only persons benefited, they gaining by the capitalization 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 a lawful manner and secure the benefits of thei operation and the maintenance of the prosperity of the country o wnlch they are an Important part; while Mr. Bryan would extirpate and destroy the entire business In order to stamp out the evils which they have practiced." Here is a confession by Mr. Taft that he regards the trusts as necessary to the nation's .prosperity, for he declares that they play an important part In the maintenance of prosperity and he charges that I would "extirpate and destroy" business in extirpating and destroying the principle of private monopoly. Surely, his study of the trust question has been very superficial, if he sees danger in the restoration of a reign of competition. Let us take an illustration: Suppose the Democrats succeed In the enactment of a law in harmony with the Democratic platform a law requiring every corporation to take out a federal license before it is permitted to control 25 per cent of the business in which it is engaged. Would this "extirpate and destroy" the business cf the country? As already stated, but a very small per cent of the corporations would be affected by the law, and those affected would be the ones that have been giving the officers of the law so much trouble during the last eighteen years. As the licensed corporation increased its business from 25 to 50 per cent, it would be under the watchful eye of the government; would be compelled to make such reports as the government required; would be prohibited from watering 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 "extirpate and destroy business to require these licensed corporations to do business on an ' honest basis and to be reasonable in their business, methods? Would not the benefit accruing to the ninety-nine small corporations thus protected from conscienceless methods be enough to offset any evil effects thrt might follow from such restraint ut a few big contra. tinea.? - is bnlaes bq .jJcnea-

dent upon dishonesty" siSZ unfairness that it would be "extirpated and destroyed" if morals were introduced into It? When the licensed corporation reached a point where It controlled one-half of the business in which it was engaged, it would, according to the Democratic plan, have to step expanding. Would It "extirpate and dtstroy" business to put this limitation upon the greed of a few corporations? Surely our plan could not injuriously affect corporations that might . hereafter seek to establish a monopoly. But possibly Mr. Taft thinks that it would "extirpate and destroy" business to apply the plan to existing monopolies. Let us see: Suppose we have a corporation now controlling 75 per cent of the output of the article In which It deals, and through this control, regufating the price and the terms of sale. How would the Democratic plan affect it? A date would be fixed at which the law would take effect, and on or before that date the corporation would be required to apply for a license. The evidence would show that it controlled a larger proportion of the product than the law permitted, and It would be compelled to sell off enough of Its plants to reduce its output to 50 per cent of the total product. It could then comply with the law, obtain Its license, and proceed to carry on Its business in accordance with the law. Would it "extirpate and destroy" business to compel such a corporation to dispose of enough of Its plants to reduce its production to 50 per cent? The people would still need the article which it produced, and the plants which It was compelled to sell would become Independent plants competing with It. This competition would reduce prices, and the reduced prices would Increase the demand for the article, and this Increased demand would stimulate the building of more factories and give a larger employment to labor. The restoration of competition in that Industry, Instead of "extirpating and destroying" the industry, would revive and enlarge it. A part of 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 the form of a better price, and part would 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 dividends on watered stock by controlling the market. When the subject Is analyzed it will be seen that Mr. Taft must either-be in darkness as to the remedy and its effect, or he must argue that the introduction of morals Into business would "extirpate and destroy" business. I have quoted and re-quoted Mr. Taft's language because I want to impress' upon the minds of those who listen to me the absurdity of the objection which he raises to the Democratic plan of exterminating monopolies. He falls to distinguish between the honest business that makes a country prosperous, and the brigandage practiced by private monopolies. The people have been robbed by the trusts to the extent of hundreds of millions a year, and If Mr. Taft Is not yet conscious of what Is going on, and not yet aroused to the Iniquity of these trusts, how can the country hope for relief through his election? The Democratic party is the defender of competition and the only great party whlcl is seeking to restore competition. Mr. Taft has, in the discussion of this question, employed harsh words instead of argument. The word "socialistic" Is hurled at the" Democratic party and the Democratic platform. Now, as a matter 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 half way toward socialism in endorsing Its fundamental principle. The socialist bases his contention on the theory that competition Is bad, and that an economic advance' is to be found In monopoly. The socialist, however, wants the public to have the benefit of the monopoly and, therefore, favors government ownership and operation of all the means of production and distribution. The Republican party has gone almost as far as the Socialist party In the economic defense of the monopoly, but It permits the benefits of monopoly to be enjoyed by a comparatively few men, who have secured a dominant Influence in government. I 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 economic conditions, and, second, by permitting the development of abuses which have been charged against individualism. If he will examine the vote published In the World Almanac, he will find that In 1900 the Republicans polled 7,208,244 votes and that the Socialists polled but 85,991; in the same almanac, he will find that in 104 the Republicans cast 7.625,483 votes and the Socialists 402.2S6. Notwithstanding the fact that the Republicans ave boasted of their last national v.ctory, their party polled but 417,000 tore votes that year than four years "oefore. This scarcely more than covert 1 the natural Increase in the Republic-n portion of the population while the Socialist vote increased more than 300 per cent, and the Increase in votes was almost as great as the increase In Republican votes. The Republican leaders have" been In the habit of sneering at the Socialists, whfis. blVidlr tn different, to the

causes that tare contribute! to tha growth of socialism. The Democrats recognize that Socialists are honestly seeking a remedy for 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 better, but it is time for thoughtful people to recognize 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 la Individualism, addresses itself earnestly tr these abuses, and Instead of ridiculing and maligning the Socialists, Invites them, as It does Republicans, to examine the Democratic platform and the remedies proposed therein. It submits its plans to the honest citizenship of the country, without regard to section or party. In my notification speech I called at-, tention to three demands made by our party. It asks, first, that the government shall be taken out of the hands, of special Interests and restored to the people as a whole; it asks, second, fori honesty in elections and publicity la regard to campaign funds, that the , people may freely choose representatives in sympathy with them and pledged to guard their interests; It asks, third, for such a modification of our governmental methods as will make the senate an elective body, and place the control cf the bouse of representatives In the hands of a majority 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. Today I present another demand made In our party plat form Vt he demand that the grip of the trusts be broken, that competition be restored and that the door : of opportunity be opened to the bust-' ness men and the toilers of the land. Industrial Independence la necessary to political independence. The free exercise of the rights of citizenship is Impossible when a few men control tha industries in' which millions 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 willingness of the employe to prostitute his ballot to the service of his corporate master. This question should be settled now; we cannot afford to bequeath It as a legacy of woe to a succeeding generation. The conscience of the 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 hundred; where one Is kept from wrongdoing by fear of prison doors, a thousand are restrained by those invisible walls which conscience rears about as barriers which are stronger than walls of granite. It Is upon the eonscience that human Institutions rest, and without a stirring of the consience no great reform is possible. To a national conscience already aroused we appeal, with the pledge that a Democratic victory will mean the ringing out of 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 fee able to practice, but In propertloa to their Industry, their ability and their fidelity.

Special Prices In Hey wood Go-Carts DUNHAM'S Furniture Store 627-629 Main St. II men's oxfords JJA All ladies oxfords at Worth $2.50, $3 and $3.50' $1.50 J. Will Mount & Son 529 Main St, Richmond, Ind. Special Prices on Our Display Stand Every Day. Backed Up With Fonr per cent Cash Coupons. PETER JOHNSON CO MAIN ST.