To-day, as always, there are men like Demetrius of Ephesus, who, when he saw that the preaching of Paul the apostle was harming his business of making silver idols, gathered his fellows together and raised a great hue and cry, shouting “Great is Diana of the Ephesians." Their fervid devotion to Diana was as false as that of monopolists and their defenders to-day who shout "Great is property" when the public conscience demands that justice be done.

The greatest security to property comes from the security of human rights, and the sooner business realizes that fact the better it will be for all concerned.

THE PERIL OF COMPROMISE.

Mr. Chairman, the American people have a right to expect a better measure than this weak, halting, halfway attempt at remedy of intolerable conditions. It does not go to the root of the evils which have brought concentration of wealth and diffusion of poverty. I sincerely hope that it may be amended so that its expressed purposes may be accomplished, for there is a deadly peril in compromise with the forces that prey. There is no golden mean between right and wrong, between courage and cowardice, between honor and dishonor, between patriotism and treason, between the people's rights and monopoly. I be lieve in industrial and commercial peace, but not the peace that is purchased at the expense of justice and human liberty. There can be no peace in America except with the destruction of the sordid social wrongs and the putrid political methods which have attended the growth of the great combinations and monop olies of this country. This is an irrepressible conflict, and there is no middle ground. The Nation looks to its Congress to strike a fair and square blow at hoary wrongs, and thus better the living conditions of the people of America. Lawmakers can concern themselves with nothing greater than that, and it is the duty as well as privilege of every Representative of the people to make that his chief end and aim in his decision upon every measure before this Congress. [Applause.]

52267-13665

о

REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE

TRADE COMMISSION BILL

Reply of Hon. James Hamilton Lewis, United States Senator from Illinois

to

Hon. W. E. Borah, United States Senator from Idaho

SPEECH

OF

HON. JAMES HAMILTON LEWIS

OF ILLINOIS

IN THE

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MONDAY, JUNE 29, 1914

WASHINGTON
1914

REPLY OF

HON. JAMES HAMILTON LEWIS,

OF ILLINOIS,

ΤΟ

HON. W. E. BORAH, OF IDAHO,

ON

THE TRADE COMMISSION BILL,

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
Monday, June 29, 1914.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President, I shall occupy the floor for a few minutes and will then give way to the able Senator from Iowa [Mr. CUMMINS], who, I understand, desires to address himself to some of the distinctive legal features of this measure.

No man in the Senate can hear with more pleasure the distinguished Senator from Idaho [Mr. BORAH] than myself, and while I am not always able to give my approval to his conclusions, no man can accord to him sincerity of conviction in the announcement of premises more readily than I. I am particularly moved to a consideration of the things to which he alludes in referring to the extent of monopoly in this country, and I am interested to recall that the denunciation of just such monopoly has for years come from the Democracy and been made by men of no less sincerity of purpose and of no inferior patriotism to that of the Senator from Idaho.

66

A single reply to the Democrats came from those who had least regard for public opinion and none for the right to express it. It was the hurled-back charge of demagogue" or anarchist" against every Democrat crying out the danger of these evils. If there had been more heed in this country to the warnings which have been given by Democracy against the encroachment of private monopoly, there would not have been need today in this great body for any man to defend or assail legislation having for its object the remedy of those monopolies and

the restraint of those who continue to execute the infamy upon the citizenship of this country which monopoly permits. Let it be now recalled that Republican administrations for the last 20 years have licensed by law these monopoly privileges which now Democrats and patriotic men of all parties alike condemn as they seek to rescue their oppressed countrymen.

There is no real citizen of this country desiring the welfare of his Nation but will agree with the anathemas hurled by the able Senator from Idaho. They join with him in all the condemnation that the splendor of his utterance flames around this hideous object and behold with him the frightening vision which he conjures up to the horror of this honorable body.

But, Mr. President, who and what did this thing? I answer. It is by and under laws upon the statute books under which these institutions have taken their shelter and their license. They were passed under administrations which denounced the Democracy because it sought to avoid the very evil which is now put upon the Republic and which eminent Republicans, such as the distinguished Senator from Idaho, confess need curbing in some instances and destruction in others.

So far as I am concerned, I wish to be very frank, and unreservedly to say that by principle I am opposed to the form of legislation which finds its way into this Chamber to-day and which is traveling fast upon the heels of similar kind that has been pacing and romping the circle of Congress for the last five or six years under the guise of remedies of national wrongs. It is to be regretted, Senators, that there is a tendency, whenever the mind is aroused by a public wrong, to remedy that public wrong by committing a greater public wrong in the form of the remedy. I deplore that there should be upon this country a general atmosphere of consent that the Federal Government should constitute itself a pater familias of each citizen of the Government and arrogate to itself power to remedy every conceivable wrong, real or imaginary, of any citizen of the Republic, however limited in operation to the domain of his local abode. The older and greater doctrine, and that more noble institution of home rule, by which a man may be regulated by his State within the State where he lives in the ex