(f^arncU Utitneraitg ffiihtarg ."E.S,. Kiy Digitized by Microsoft® The date shows when this volume was taken. Noviims^ JAN 5 1950 ^^^ 1 3 mso HOME USE RULES All books subject to recall AH borrowers must regis- ter in the library to borrow books for home use. All books must be re- turned at end of college year for inspection and repairs. Limited books must be returned within the four week limit and not renewed. Students must return all books before leaving town. Officers should arrange for the return of books wanted - during their absence from town^ I . Volumes of periodicals and of- pamphlets are held in the library as much as possible. For special pur- poses they are given out for a limited time. Borrowers should not use their library privileges for the benefit of other persons. Books of special value and gift books, when the giver wishes it, are not allowed to circulate. Readers are asked to re- port all cases of books marked or mutilated. Do not deface books by marks and writing. Cornell University Library HF1456 .K57 Equal opportunitv for all as against spe olin 3 1924 030 175 461 Digitized by Microsoft® This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in cooperation witli Cornell University Libraries, 2007. You may use and print this copy in limited quantity for your personal purposes, but may not distribute or provide access to it (or modified or partial versions of it) for revenue-generating or other commercial purposes. Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® A4//M ^ y^Sil^^'byM^n Equal Opportunity For All as against Special Benefits to a Privileged Few — Bx, FREDERIC E. KIP. "Kypsburg," Montclair, New Jersey. Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Equal Opportunity for All as against Special Benefits to a Privileged Few EQUAL Opportunity for AH in the United States is most difficult if not impossible of attainment under our present system of multiplied state laws, many of said laws being ' contradictory, and the attempt to, have them operate in states other than where they were passed has resulted in our present confused condition. We shall never have "Equal Opportunity for All" in the United States until we have one set of laws for the same thing operating to the same effect all o&sr the country. Much effort has been expended to find the germ that afflicts our body politic, and to-day the American people are ready to deal radically in order to cut out the canker of special privilege for the few, and to create in its place conditions which will bring equity in law and "Equal Opportunity to All" in fact. The germ of our disease is the existence in our country, for identically the same purpose, of forty-nine different systems of law with hundreds and hundreds of state laws, aU different and some contradictory, and our allowing these whoUy different and contradictory state laws to attempt to operate over other states than those in which they are actually passed and to which they properly be- long. What is the result.? The present great confusion and chaos. It seems so foolish that we should allow these absurdities, causing such chaotic conditions to exist in our midst, and working against "Equal Opportunity for All," that we must first explain why it is that the different state laws became the law in fact of the entire land. [3] Digitized by Microsoft® Hundreds of Laws for the Same Thing, Many of Same Con- tradictory and Impos- sible of Execution. Confusion of Original Colonies — Afterwards Thirteen Original States — was Practically the Same as Confusion Existing with us To-day. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL The beginning of our Nation was the coming together into a Federation in 1787 of the thirteen original States. Each colony previous to that had had full control of everything within its borders as an individual sovereignty. The thirteen original States were called together by Wash- ington, and the proposition presented was a commercial and not a political one. From this call of Washington the Constitution of the United States was in 1787 the outcome. There was at that time a condition of confusion in these thirteen original States, there being things that none of them could individually properly control, and they were therefore compelled to give unto the Collective States — the Federal Government — certain of those things which made confusion and chaos by attempt of individual state control. How did they arrive at a conclusion rela- tive thereto.' They used as a basis to determine that which should come under Federal control and law, the test as to whether the matter was of general or universal interest as opposed to local or in- dividual state interest. Interstate commerce consisted of business activities extending beyond the borders of any one state ; therefore, no one individual state could properly control same ; hence, in 1787 the Constitution gave the Federal Government control over all interstate com- merce. Federal Law and Control Over all Interstate Commerce and Navigable Waterways. Later the Federal Government, as an implied result of the grant of control over interstate commerce, took complete control over all navi- gable waterways of the country because they were then the only existing arteries of transpor- tation for interstate commerce articles ; and, mark you, the Federal Government since then has controlled and to-day does control all navi- gable waterways by Federal law, said law [4] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL operating both within the individual state and without the individual state. For exactly the same reason, namely, matters of gen- eral or universal interest, as opposed to local or individual state interest, the thirteen original States placed under Federal law and control: The Customs Duties. The United States Mail. And the Federal Government's control relative thereto is supreme both within the individual state and without the individual state. All vessels under the grant of Admiralty jurisdiction were also placed under Federal con- trol and law; and, mark you again, this Ad- miralty control operated, and to-day continues to operate, over all vessels whether they sail exclusively within the borders of one state or *not; so again we have our Federal law operating both within the individual state and without same. After making over these certain rights to the Federal Government, other rights were immediately added. As soon as the Government was organized in 1789, ten amendments were made of which the Ninth and Tenth are as follows : IX. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of cer- tain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." X. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respec- tively, or to the people." [5] Digitized by Microsoft® Federal Control and Law Over Customs Duties, V. S. Mail, and Admiralty Jurisdiction. Rights Reserved to the People. Powers Reserved to the States or to the People. EQIFAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Mark you tlie language: "or to the people." In other words, the Framers of the Constitution say they were then (1787 and 1789) giving over to the United States (Fed- eral Government) such powers as will allow the Federal laws to operate relative to things that have become of more general interest than of individual state interest, (and which had produced confused conditions by attempt of individual state control), and all things not specifically given over to the Federal Government "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The very language that all rights, other than those given to the United States, are reserved to the people shows the minds of the early framers of the Constitution, viz: — that they had then placed under Federal law and control those things which had then become of such gen- eral interest as opposed to individual state interest, as to make such change necessary, and that in the future the people, with change of conditions, could place such other things in the hands of the Federal Government as would then also have become of more general interest than of individual state interest. If, in 1787, the individual states could each have properly controlled interstate commerce, customs duties, mails, admiralty jurisdiction, etc., do you suppose, for one minute, these states would have parted with any of such rights? No, indeed, they would not: it was only because at that time (1787) those particular things created so much confusion and chaos by the unsuccessful attempt of individual state control (for the reason that the said things had then become of so much more general than of local state interest) that our forefathers were compelled to place same under Federal law, to avoid the confused conditions of the then attempted but ineffectual state law and control. So are we to-day confronted with identically the same problems as were our forefathers in 1787, viz: — invention (almost annihilating time and space), transportation, in- [6] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL dustry, and business have so changed since 1787, and they in turn have so altered conditions that many of the things that were formerly of local have now become of general interest, and the attempt of state control now results in confusion, just the same as the local control of those other things resulted in confusion in 1787. There is no more reason why the people of to-day should not give over to Federal law and control certain present things which were formerly local, but which have now become, by our changed conditions, of more general interest, than there was for our forefathers — the early framers of the Constitution — not to have then given over to Federal law those fewer things that in 1787 had already become of more general than local interest, and that then required to be put under Federal law to obviate the confusion of that day which resulted from attempted but ineffectual individual state control. After declaring our independence in 1776 and winning it in 1783, we still existed until 1789 as thirteen separate states united only by the agreement known as the Articles of Confedera- tion, by which the separate states granted to Congress only a few very limited powers. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and other thinkers and doers of those early days strenuously maintained that the chaos, confusion and inequalities caused by certain things that could not be properly controlled by individual States, could only be cured by granting extended powers over such things to the Federal Govern- ment. George Washington argued most strenuous- ly for such increased powers for the Federal Government. His exact words in 1786 are very illumining and were most prophetic: "It is clear to me as 'A. B. C that an ex- tension of Federal powers would make us one of the most happy, wealthy, respectable and [7] Digitized by Microsoft® George Washing- ton's Pre- diction of Benefit from Extended Federal Powers. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL powerful nations that ever inhabited the terres- trial globe. Without them we shall soon be everything which is the direct reverse. I predict the worst consequences from a half-starved, limping government, always moving on crutches and tottering at every step." The extension of Federal powers in 1787 and 1789 resulted, just as the immortal Washington in 1786 pre- dicted that it would do, and history now records that it has done, viz, produced: "One of the most happy, wealthy, respectable and powerful nations that ever inhabited the terrestrial globe." Our great inventions since 1789 of steam, electricity, telegraphy, telephone, interstate business activities, trans- portation means, etc., etc., have made with us now new conditions. These new conditions are now producing con- fusion, chaos and unequal opportunities, just the same as those fewer other things in 1783 and 1789 produced then confusion, chaos and unequal opportunities. The cure now for the present state of affairs is just the same as the cure was then, and the immortal Washington's prophetic words of 1786 are just as applicable now as then: "7 predict the worst consequences from a half-starved, limping government, always mov- ing on crutches and tottering at every step." Although we may be wealthy, indeed very wealthy, we, as a nation, cannot be truly happy nor truly great unless we vouchsafe to every man, "EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY" Without this we must remain a "limping government, always moving on crutches and tottering at every step." But some will raise the objection that if the changes proposed are made, we shall have too centralized a gov- [8] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR AI-L ernment. The answer is — Equal Opportunity for each individual is the most important thing in the world; and if it is obtainable only by having a more centralized government, then hy all means let us have a more cen- tralized government, because the only true and abiding for all time foundation for any government is "Equal Op- portunity for All" with special privilege to none. To-day, as we have just stated, we are in practically the same condition of confusion as were our thirteen origi- nal States in 1787, and for our solution we too must also use the same basis as did the thirteen original States in 1787 to determine that which should be placed under Federal control and law, viz : The test as to whether the matter is of more general (or interstate) interest than local or in- dividual state interest. Therefore, the propositions herein presented for the betterment of our people, and the substitution of order, equity, and "Equal Opportunity for All," for the present confusion, instead of being — as may have seemed at first — revolutionary and contrary to the existing order of things, are in reality nothing more or less than the application of exactly the same tests and standards that the thirteen original States applied in 1787. In other words, by the changed conditions of life, industries, commerce, transpor- tation, communication, etc., all our present large inter- state business activities have become more and more of general interest, and less and less of local or individual state interest, and as such should be also under Federal law, said law operating both within and without the state where domiciled. Therefore, by applying the same test as the thirteen original States applied in 1787 and making our laws ac- cordingly you do away with practically all of the present confusion and chaos, you prevent trust domination to the detriment of the people by curing many of the present trust evils and especially the discrimination of transporta- [9] Digitized by Microsoft® Our Equal Opportunity Proposals Not Revolw- tionary But Natural. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Domicile the Factor with the Individual States. Exannple of our Erroneous System and Law. tion advantages to a privileged few, you make equal opportunities for all, and you operate aU over the United States by fundamentally correct principles and funda- mentally sound law, just the same as do all other civilized nations, including England, Germany and France, as will be later herein set forth and proven. Notwithstanding that the states collectively placed under Federal control and law such matters as were in 1787 of more general interest, as stated above, even then and thereafter when they acted in their individual state capacity they used domicile as a basis to determine that which should remain under state control. In time this living or domicile came to be extended to cover either actual domicile or legal domicile. By way of illustration, which proves how incorrect our present system really is, take the case of a New York firm which desires to incorporate its business. It asks itself the question: Which state affords the best induce- ments for incorporation? Perhaps the answer will be Delaware ; therefore the firm incorporates in Delaware, although it does not own one dollar in that state. Once a year the parties interested have an annual meeting in a lawyer's ofBce, and this is all that need be done within the State of Delaware. Indeed, the slight formality of having annually one meeting within the state is not even required by the State of Delaware. Notwithstanding this, Dela- ware tries to throw its mantle over the acts of that cor- poration, not only in the State of New York, but in each and every other state in the Union. A Delaware sheriff could not arrest a horse thief across the border-line of the state, yet here is Delaware endeavoring to extend its mantle over this really New York State corporation not only in its home state but over its activities in every state of the Union, with the natural and inevitable result of the present confusion and chaos, because Delaware is attempt- ing to do something which it cannot do. Its jurisdiction is exclusively within the border-lines of the State of Dela- ware, yet it is trying legally to throw its jurisdiction over [10] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL all the other states of the Union. This might be borne if Delaware were really able to govern the corporation and to protect the interests of its stockholders, creditors, cus- tomers, and employees all over the country, but the real facts are that Delaware can do little outside of its own borders beyond producing conflict with local regulations of other states, and confusion where everyone desires order. In order to understand why the individual states use "domicile" as their basis to determine that which should remain under state law, we must go back of the formation of the Federal Government in 1787. As has been stated, each colony — and its successor, the state — previous to that time had full control over everything within its borders as an individual sovereignty; consequently when a man lived or domiciled within the borders of any par- ticular colony or state, all law relative to this man, his family, his house, and all within his house, his goods, etc., were considered as coming under the jurisdiction of that particular colony, or later, that particular state; and naturally, later when factories — ^larger houses, so to speak — ^were built, all law relative to the articles produced in said factories, and the operatives within the factories, were also under that particular state law. The situation at that time (1787), however, was prac- tically harmless, for such things as nation-wide industries were then unknown. There were few factories, and what there were supplied chiefly a local demand, or when their goods did go into other states it was by specific consign- ment and without much direct relation between the manu- facturer and the consumer. Competition between fac- tories in the different states was comparatively unim- portant. To ship goods from Boston to Philadelphia was more like foreign commerce than the domestic commerce of to-day. It took as long then to ship from Boston to Philadelphia as it does to-day to ship from Boston to London, and it was practically the same sort of a transac- tion, even to the fact that the shipments in quantity were [11] Digitized by Microsoft® Conditions at and Previous to 1787. Changed Conditions of To-day. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL J: necessarily by sea. Communication was also necessarily slow, and the control of every-day transactions had to be local in order to be effective. To-day through the wonderfully changed conditions in transportation, in the development of inventions, almost annihilating time and space, the tremendous enlargement of our industries and their change to more and more of interstate and general interest and less and less of individual state interest, the country at large is facing the same proposition as the col- lective States had to face in 1787 when they had to deter- mine that which should he given over to Federal control and law. For the good of the American toiling masses and to make toward "Equal Opportunity for All," we to-day must follow the example of the collective States in 1787, and maki~Why article that has been predetermined to flow in interstate commerce — and which therefore is of more general interest than of individual state interest — subject to Federal law. There is no other way that we can obtain "Equity and Equal Opportunity for All" than to have one set of Federal laws applying to the many phases of our social and economic life, to which, in the early days of our nation, the application of nvTmerous state laws was not the evil which it is to-day. Cause of our Present Inequality, Confusion, and Chaos. Cure for Present Inequality and Confusion. The fact that the individual states took domicile as a basis to determine that which would remain under state law instead of dealing with the article produced, which is the crucial and important thing, has caused the present tremendous confusion, inequality, and unequal oppc^r- tunity, and it is now possible only to obtain "Equal Opportunity for All" by seeing that both the individual states and the states collectively shall use the same basis in both cases for determination: that is, whether the ar- ticle is of more general interest and is or is not intended to flow into interstate commerce, namely: AH "articles" predetermined to remain within the border-lines of a particular state shall be exclusively under state law and control. [12] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL All "articles" predetermined and predeclared to go into interstate commerce shall be, together with the busi- ness activities connected therewith, exclusively under Fed- eral law, both within and without the individual state. All labor connected with such "articles" predetermined and predeclared to go into interstate commerce shall also be under Federal law. This would resolve itself into the following proposi- tions : Proposition 1. Every individual, firm, and corporation should, as to their business activi- ties, be under "State law," if, and only if, they confine their business activity within the borders of the state in question. Proposition 2. The moment any individual, firm, or corporation predetermines and declares intention to engage in interstate commerce, he, they, or it shall at once become subject exclu- sively to "Federal law," and all labor connected with their business activities shall also become subject exclusively to "Federal law," said Fed- eral laws operating both within the state where the business is domiciled and without the state. In 1787 the Federal Government was given control over interstate commerce ; and as the navigable waterways of the country were then the only important arteries carrying articles in interstate commerce, the Federal Gov- ernment, as an implied result of the grant of control over interstate commerce, soon assumed complete control over all navigable streams, rivers, and harbors, and Congress was expressly given control over all vessels under the grant of Admiralty jurisdiction. Thus the Federal Constitution did give to Congress the control of the then existing in- struments of commerce, whether actually engaged at the moment in interstate commerce or not. Therefore to-daj' the Federal Government takes charge of all navigable [18] Digitized by Microsoft® Importance of Federal Control of, Rivers, U. S. Custom House and U. 8. Mails. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Jmpurtance of Federal Control and Law for Our Oreat Interstate Oommerce Articles, Coal, Oil, Etc. waterways in each of the separate states, and biilk-heads or obstructions of any kind cannot be built upon same in any individual state without the authority and sanction of the Federal Government. To-day many of the articles of our greatest industries, namely, oil, coal, iron, automobiles, cold storage ware- house companies, etc., stand just where the vessels and the waters of the navigable rivers of the individual states stood in 1787, as to-day, coal, oil, iron, cold storage food- stuffs, etc., are just as, and even more, important elements of general interest and of interstate commerce than the admiralty vessels, navigable waterways, the custom duties, or the mail of any individual state; yet, because the coal of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, the oils of Pennsyl- vania and Ohio, the water powers of Niagara, Maine, North Carolina, Georgia, etc., cold storage warehouses and the large interstate industries were all domiciled within the border-lines of particular states, they have erroneously been suffered to remain under state control and law. A few minutes' investigation along the line of our "Equal Opportunity for All" plan will show how incorrect this really is. As mentioned before, the states placed under Federal control and law the navigable waterways because these waterways were bound to flow between states and to be used in interstate commerce for transportation of inter- state articles. Now, for argument's sake, to prove our point, suppose we dry up or prohibit in some way before they leave the State of Pennsylvania the state waters of the Sus- quehanna River. A considerable amount of hardship wiU be inflicted upon certain river-shipping interests, but still the freight can be handled by other means of transporta- tion. But now suppose we prohibit all coal from leaving Pennsylvania and other states where coal exists, so that there will be no coal in any but a few states. Nearly all industries in the entire United States must in a compara- tively short time shut down. No light, no trolleys, no rail- roads running — either electrical or steam — no heat, no [14] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL •work for operatives formerly employed in all industries, and, constituted as things are to-day, millions in the United States would freeze to death, and the agony of millions of people and the calamity to thousands of indus- tries would simply be vmthvnhahle. Which, therefore, is the more important for Federal control, coal or the navigable waterways? Or, weighed up as things were in 1787, which is more bound to flow or travel in interstate commerce, and which is of more general as opposed to individual state interest, or which does the welfare of the people require to move more unimpededly, coal or the navigable waters of the state? Why do we tolerate longer a system of laws which brings under Federal law and control within and without the individual states vessels and all navigable waterways, and denies such similar Federal law and control both within and without the states to articles such as coal, oil, iron, etc., when some of these articles, in both general in- terest and in an interstate commerce sense, are thousands of times more important both to the welfare and to the very lives of the people of all the states of the Union? Do we not know that the coal from the mines of Penn- sylvania is just as sure to flow in interstate commerce as are admiralty vessels or the waters of Pennsylvania's navi- gable rivers, and that coal is of far more general interest than of local or of any individual state interest? If the government takes control of the vessels and navigable rivers within the individual states, why should not one set of Federal laws also have control within the individual state of that particular article predetermined and pre- declared to travel in interstate commerce? All of the larger interstate business of the country stands in just the same relation as does this coal of the State of Pennsylvania. For instance, take the example of the Willys Automobile Works in Toledo, Ohio, or the Ford Automobile Works in Detroit, Michigan. The out- lay in these plants, as is well-known, merely for buildings [15] Digitized by Microsoft® Many of Our Commercial "Articles" - Are More Bound to Flow in Interstate Commerce Than the Navigable Rivers. Example — Willys or "Ford" Automobiles. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL and machinery has been many millions of dollars — one automatic machine alone costing hundreds of thousands of doUars. Of course, it is utterly impossible that the residents of the single states wherein these immense plants are located could buy all of the automobiles produced in said works. Hence, we know absolutely that the WUlys automobiles produced in this Ohio factory and the Ford automobiles produced in this Michigan factory will be sold and delivered all over the country, (in fact all over the world), and will so flow in interstate commerce, and are far more of general interest than of any one state in- terest. Therefore, the Willys Automobile Works, instead of being under the control of the State of Ohio, and the Ford Automobile Works under the control of the State of Michigan, both should be regulated within and without these states entirely and exclusively by Federal laws. Under the present system the shipments of these com- panies within their respective States are under State law, the shipments beyond the states are under Federal law, but the factories and all the material therein, and the operatives connected therewith, and all that concerns their business activities are under the State law. The Willys and Ford Automobile Works are really national institutions and they should not he any more under the control of the States of Ohio or Michigan, merely because they are physically located there, than should the vessels or the navigable waters located in these States be under State control. The business activities of these automobile works should be under the law and domination of the States of Ohio and Michigan, provided they predetermine that their business activities shall be confined to the limits of the respective States, wherein the state jurisdiction and law are supreme, but if the Willys and Ford Automobile Works predetermine and predeclare their intention of doing an interstate business, the entire business should be under one set of Federal laws, as provided for in our Pro- position No. 2. For the crucial thing is the article pro- [16] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL duced. If this article is actually confined to the border- line of the state, all law relative thereto and all labor connected therewith should properly belong exclusively to the individual state. //, however, the article cannot he confined within the limits of the border-line of the state, and is predetermined to fiow and travel in interstate commerce, then the article and the business activities connected therewith have the same application as the navigable waters of any individual state or vessels under admiralty jurisdiction and should be controlled both within the state itself, and without the state, by one set of Federal laws. Then, and then only, can we have "Equal Opportunity for All." To continue our present contradictory State laws, at- tempting to operate in interstate relations, and producing the present confusion and chaos, is absurdity in the ex- treme. Let the individual states be supreme within their own borders, but do not permit them to have a pretended control over other states, when, in fact, it is utterly im- possible for them to exercise such control on any equitable and efficient basis. The attempt results not only in the present confusion but also in a system which makes for the special privileges and advantages of a few as against "Equal Opportunity for All." Notwithstanding that for all these years we have lived under the erroneous pretense that one state can and does extend its authority over business activities and means of transportation in another state, the real fact is that this is not so, as it is impossible under our Constitution ac- tually so to do, because when any business activity extends beyond the border-lines of any one particular state, viz — to two or more states — it is nothing more or less than interstate commerce, and there is no other known au- thority that can act relative thereto but the Federal Government, as the Constitution of the United 'States ex- pressly provides that all interstate commerce shall be under Federal law and control. [17] Digitized by Microsoft® Pretetided Control of Individ/aal States Over Other States. Under Our Constitution for Individual State Control to be Interstate in Its Function. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Interstate Articles and A ctivities Interstate (Federal) Law. The navigable rivers of the country were early placed under Federal law and control as an implied grant of power over interstate commerce. To-day all business ac- tivities (viz, the direct sale, shipment, or purchase of articles from another state) stand just in the same relation as the navigable waterways, or admiralty vessels, as they represent articles flowing or traveling between states or in interstate commerce. It is exactly the same also with the means of transpor- tation of the country. They are charging a toll for transporting articles and persons between states or in interstate commerce. It is exactly the same also with the telephone and tele- graph companies. They are charging a toll for trans- porting intelligence over wire; in the one case, the tele- phone, intelligence by aid of interstate transportation of the human voice, and, in the other case, interstate trans- portation of intelligence by aid of the telegraphic code. Everyone of them, however, involves flowing or traveling between states, and therefore in interstate commerce, just exactly as flow or travel the navigable waterways of the country; and they all should operate, and operate only, under Federal laws, exactly as the vessels and the navi- gable waterways of the country are to-day and long have been under Federal law. If it is right and proper to have the navigable water- ways and vessels under admiralty jurisdiction, according to the Constitution, under Federal law, said law operating both within and without the state where domiciled, then it is also just as right and just as proper to have all means of transportation, including telephone and telegraph com- panies, cold storage warehouse companies and all busi- ness activities extending over two or more states, also un- der Federal law, said law to operate also both within and without the state where domiciled. Then, and then only, will we get rid of our present con- fusion, chaos, and great inequalities, and replace the same [18] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL with order, justice, efficiency, and "Equal Opportunity for All." On the other hand, of course, individual firms or cor- porate enterprises which confine their business wholly within the limits of a state should be subject, and subject only, to the laws of that state. Such, for example, would be the case of most gas, trolley, electric or other public service companies which operate entirely within one state; so also amusement companies and retail shops. The only point to be noticed with respect to such concerns is that if they incorporate such incorporation must be made in the state in which they transact their business. The anomaly should not be tolerated of an enterprise operat- ing in one state being incorporated and subject to the law of another state possibly thousands of miles away. Under our plan the amounts to be derived from taxes by the individual states will not be perceptibly less than at the present time, but the individual state's expenses will be very materially less, as fully set forth on pages 48, 49, and 50. Now let us follow up our discovery of the cause of our present-day disease, put our remedy to the test and see whether or not it will dissipate the present chaotic conditions and make for "Equal Opportunity for All." A few examples will suffice to show the need, efficiency, and benefit of our proposals. Example No. 1. In one state the age limit for the employment of a child is fourteen years. In some other states there is no age limit at all. Therefore, in such state a child could be put to work when six, eight, or ten years of age — ^yet the child is not paid for working in that par- ticular state, but is paid for producing some ar- ticle, (the article produced being the crucial and fundamental thing — not the place of produc- tion), and if the article so produced is predeter- mined to enter into interstate commerce rela- f 19 1 Absolute State Control Where State Law Can Properly Operate, viz : — Within Border-limes of That State. State Retained — Expenses Reduced. l/' "Equal Op- portunity'' Proposals as Applied to Child Labor. Digitized by Microsoft® -\ The Article Produced Is the Fundor- mental Thing— Not the Place of Production. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL tions, all law relative to that child labor should be Federal, and naturally so, because the pro- duct of that child's labor is sold in interstate commerce and comes in competition with the product of every other laborer in every other state of the Union. Note the injustice of permitting the lax laws of Georgia relative to age or hours of labor to destroy or cripple a similar industry in Massachusetts. A mill in Massachusetts obeying a just child labor law of that state relative to hours and age of employment may be driven out of business by a mill in Georgia exploiting the labor of young children, and the passing of a proper law in one state may be prevented by the knowledge that if its neighbor state does not co-operate it will rob the progres- sive state of its industries. Exactly the same principle applies to the hours of labor of women and children, and to the establishment of a minimum wage for women, and indeed to the hours of employment of all operatives. Each and every worker is paid for producing some thing or some article, and if they did not produce some article they would not be em- ployed; therefore necessarily it is the article produced that is the crucial thing, and not the place of production. That "some thing" or article produced, when it is con- nected with a predetermined and declared interstate com- merce business, becomes a factor in interstate commerce and as such has an interstate application (even while be- ing domiciled within the border-line of a particular state) that makes it imperative that the laws for labor relative to all such operatives shall also be interstate or Federal. Then all important manufacturers in all states will have, as they should have, one set of national laws relative to labor, working hours, etc., instead of having, as at present, hundreds and hundreds of laws, and many of them entirely contrary and conflicting. And, as stated before, when we put such operatives engaged in producing 120 1 Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL articles which are predetermined to travel in interstate commerce under a set of Federal laws, all the present obnoxious conditions disappear and we have one set of laws, bringing justice, equity, and "Equal Opportunity" for all citizens, including operatives and employers alike, and at the same time we strike a tremendous blow at the present advantages enjoyed by a special privileged class. Example No. ^. Take the strike troubles in the coal mines of Pennsylvania some years ago, and in those of Colorado in April, 1914. In the latter instance, strikers were shooting down workers, and deputies of the mine owners and the state militia were shooting down strikers and even non-participating women and children, and con- ditions were so chaotic that the Governor of the State of Colorado was compelled to request aid of Federal troops, and the Federal Government sent troops into the State of Colorado to restore order. Why should either Pennsyl- vania or Colorado control conditions at the mines when the products of those mines not only are used throughout the nation, and hence are far more of general than of local or individual state interest, but are vital to the very life of the nation and to that of every man, woman, and child within it? Under such conditions the location of the mine is of absurdly small importance ; whereas the final disposi- tion of the article produced in the mine is of overwhelming importance. Under our proposals if the product of the mines is predetermined and predeclared to go into inter- state commerce, all law relative to the mines, the mine owners, the miners, the hours of labor, equipment for safety, health, etc. — all must be Federal. With one set of laws for the same thing everywhere, and that set of laws dictated by the interests of the nation, which as an entirety is interested therein, we achieve at one stroke simplicity, equality, and justice, for no private interest should have paramount authority to dominate the control of coal. There would be sane and just Federal laws for miner as well as for mine owner. One of these laws would no doubt provide for the creation of a Federal Conciliatory or Ar- [211 Digitized by Microsoft® "Equal Op- portunity" Proposals as Applied to Recent Coal Strikes in Pennsylvania and Colorado. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Claimed Power of Interests Over Individual States, Courts, Etc. "Equal Op- portunity" as Applied to Ex- changes, Cotton, Produce, Cold Stor- age, Etc. bitration Board, for the adjustment of disputes in all coal mines engaged in production for interstate use within the United States. Such a board would settle and fix all question of wages and hours of labor, and its ruling would be binding on both miners and mine owners. As there would be but one set of Federal laws, the duties of the mine owners and operatives would be plain and known to the Government and to all parties. The Government would certainly see to it that the miner had his full share of compensation. In case of non-fulfillment, by either mine owner or miner, of proper conditions as set forth by Federal law, the Federal Government would step in and operate the mine, at any rate for a time, for the benefit of the entire people of the United States. It is claimed that some of the special interests, whether of capital or of labor, are so powerful financially and poli- tically that they can control some of the individual states, in regard to securing certain decisions in State Courts, and having laws passed by State Legislatures favorable to their desires. Our "Equal Opportunity for All" Federal Law Plan absolutely prevents this, as all law for the coal mine, the coal owner, and the coal miners, if the product is predetermined to be interstate, would be Federal, and consequently there would be no opportunity for any "spe- cial interests" to corrupt or pervert any individual State Court or Legislature. J Example No. 3. Take the Cotton Exchange, which is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. There never has been one single pound of cotton com- "mercially grown in the State of New York. If the Cotton Exchange wants to operate under the New York State Corporation Law,' then it should confine its dealing only to cotton grown within the border-lines of New York State itself. If, however, it wants to, as it does now, deal in interstate cotton grown in the Southern or other states, then it must declare such interstate intention and be com- pelled to work under Federal law. [22] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL| The same applies to all Exchanges, such as the Pro- duce Exchange and other Exchanges or Associations deal- ing in or handling provisions entering into interstate com- merce, such as cold storage companies, etc. Cold storage warehouses were meant to be a blessing High Cost to conserve perishable food for time of scarcity. They "J^^ '^*"^ have turned out to be a curse to our people because with Storage of the confusion and chaos of conflicting jurisdictions under Foodstufs. forty-eight different State laws, — with the Federal au- thority forty-nine different masters both in law and in fact, — foodstuffs of all kinds can be indefinitely held in cold storage and the cost of living advanced as of late by leaps and bounds. New York State Commissioner Joseph Hartigan, — Commissioner on Weights and Measures and Secretary of the Mayor of New York's Committee on food supplies, — issued a statement on November 30th, 1916, in which he said: "The egg boycott, while not at its height yet, is gaining ground fast. It is proving an effective weapon to decrease demand and lower prices. It promotes economy in the use of eggs, and it con- tributes in the stoppage of waste. "We need a national cold storage law. Cold storage was meant to be a blessing, to conserve perishable food for time of scarcity. Such abuses have crept in through its connection with gambling food interests, as to bring the system under suspicion. "There is an association of seventy-five cold storage plants which covers the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Maryland. It is possible under the secret work- ings of this association to keep food products in cold storage for an indefinite time, which, linked up with the ' gambling interests in foodstuffs, makes for higher prices to the consumer." [23] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Oambling in Foodstuffs Is Oambling With the Very Life Blood of Our People. In other words, foodstuffs may be, through cold stor- age warehouse facilities and combinations, placed into the hands of gambling interests and the cost of living "sky- rocketed" to the immense detriment of all our people, and yet with our forty-nine conflicting jurisdictions abso- lutely nothing effective can be done at the present time to prevent this appalling evil. It is claimed that foodstuffs are sometimes retained in cold storage for a year and over. When any govern- ment allows such gambling in foodstuffs it is gambling with the very life blood of its own people and consequently either there must be a change in our confusion of laws and jurisdictions — ^which allow such a condition to exist — or our government cannot endure; as any government unable to prevent such fundamentally vital evils is but a limping government which in time must totter and fall. The New York State Committee on foodstuffs recently reported in favor of governmental supervision of produc- tion, transportation and distribution as a cure for exist- ing cold storage evils. Our Equal Opportunity proposals accomplish in effect just this result. New York City and aU our large cities are being fed by other states of the Union as far West as Nebraska and the Dakotas. It is impossible therefore for any individual state laws to properly operate as the interests of the whole people of the Union are vitally concerned and are in the balance. How would our "Equal Opportunity" proposals cure this great and growing evil? The cold storage associa- tions under our proposals could neither sell outside nor receive from outside the State any foodstuffs unless fed- erally incorporated; consequently they must all be so incorporated if a corporation; or federally licensed if a firm or individual. A Federal law would make it a mis- demeanor to keep certain foodstuffs in cold storage beyond a certain period of time and make it compulsory to stamp the date of entry on all foodstuffs in cold stor- age. This and further Federal laws forbidding gambling in foodstuffs would effectively cure this great and rapidly growing evil among us. [24] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Another great beneficial result of our Equal Oppor- tunity proposals would be that commission merchants handling products of the farmers from all over the Coun- try would be subj ect to uniform Federal regulation, where- by the farmer making said shipments would be impartially protected. The New York Stock Exchange deals in stocks, bonds, and securities of companies in all states, and is, therefore, dealing in interstate securties, and consequently under our proposals would be compelled to operate only under Fed- eral law, or confine its dealings to securities, etc., of the State of New York. With such Federal control one set of laws would control aU the actions of such Stock Ex- changes, whereas, now — the New York Stock Exchange being merely an association of individuals and not incor- porated — neither the government nor the state can prac- tically have any control over them. Please note that although the New York Stock Exchange is located or domiciled in New York City, it is dealing in securities of different states, therefore interstate securities, also the market which it furnishes is interstate, as orders are re- ceived from all states by wire, phone, and mail, and it affects materially the development of industries and trans- portation throughout every state of the Union. With Federal control of the Stock Exchanges and Federal incorporation of all corporations, and Federal license of all individuals or concerns which predetermine and declare to do an interstate commerce business — ^which, of course, would include all interstate transportation means or companies and all telephone and telegraph com- panies — ^many of the worst abuses of the Wall Street mani- pulators and railroad barons could immediately be cured. All of the American people, and indeed all the nations of the World, know that, particularly in the last forty years. securities in the United States in the forms of bonds and stocks of corporations and of interstate transporta- tion lines have often been pyramided on inflated values, [26] Digitized by Microsoft® Protection to the Farmers. "Equal Op- portvmty" Proposals as Applied to New York Stock Ex- change and Wall Street Manipu- lators. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Our Pro- posals Will Prevent Exploita- tions of "Oold-brick" Stocks to the Detri- ment of the People. many times their true worth, and palmed off on the public to the public's great detriment and loss, and to the tremendous profit of the manipulators or railroad barons, and it is a well-known fact that many of the greatest fortunes in the United States have been so made. With one set of Federal Laws for such companies and Federal control of the Stock Exchange, we can follow the simple law of England, which has been her law for many years, and which in effect operates as follows : The English Government says in effect that no one shall sell "gold-brick" stocks or securities unknown to the public; therefore, it is provided that anyone who wishes to incor- porate a company or to increase the stock of any cor- poration or concern the stock or bonds of which are to be sold at a public exchange, must state in a publicly adver- tised announcement exactly what was paid for the prop- erty in question, from whom it was purchased, and other full details, and a statement of this kind is filed with a certain bureau of the Government. False statements are punishable by severe jail sentences. For argument sake we will say that you buy a railroad for one million doUars. You desire to incorporate it at five millions. You must then state from whom you purchased it, state the reason why you consider that your management is going to make the property worth, instead of one million, five millions, and after doing that and giving full advertised notice to the public that there are four millions of water in the proposition, if the public choose to buy the stock they are at liberty to do so. In other words, the Government of England does not allow promoters or stock jobbers to pyramid values and sell "gold-brick" stocks to the public ■without letting them Jcnow exactly what they are purchas- ing, and with one set of Federal laws for all such com- panies the same result exactly, for the protection of the public, could be obtained here with little or no trouble or difficulty. Under our proposed plan such financial disasters as recently occurred in the New York, New Haven, and Hart- [26] Digitized by IVIicrosoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL ford Railroad stocks would hardly be possible, because with a general Federal statute similar to the English law, the price paid for any railroad or trolley line by another company whose stock is sold to the public would have to be given in full, with the terms, to a Federal Board and also be advertised in certain papers. This would immedi- ately let in the searchlight of publicity and investigation, making impossible any such looting of so great a property and the resultant tremendous losses to so many innocent investors. In this connection, too, it is interesting to note that the dispute between the Federal Department of Jus- tice and the directors of this very New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad Company finally hinged on the point that the State of Massachusetts claimed a right to buy the stock of the Boston & Maine Railroad Company, although only a part of the lines of the latter company are within the borders of the State of Massachusetts. That state should have no control whatever over an inter- state railroad in which the people of the several states all have a direct and important interest. Such Disasters as Recent N. Y., N. H.. f H. B. R. Would Be Impossible Under "Equal Op- portumty for All" Proposals. Our large life and other insurance companies make contracts of insurance all over the country, and the people of the entire nation are deeply interested in them. Some- times the individual states have made most unjust attacks upon insurance companies. Recently, for instance, they drove all the fire insurance companies out of the State of Missouri, and years ago New Hampshire passed a Valued Policy Law which was most unfortunate in some of its results. Again, we know only too well, from the experi- ence learned some few years ago, how dangerously in- eflicient the control of such life insurance companies by a state may be, and when various insurance companies are incorporated under the laws of various states, all more or less contradictory and relatively inequitable, confusion be- comes truly worse confounded, and confusion spells in- equality and injustice, both to the company and to the insured alike. AU insurance companies which predeter- mine and confine their activities within the border-lines of [27] Digitized by Microsoft® Life and Other Insurance Companies. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Transpor- tation with. Special 'ts to a Privileged Few or "Eqiuil Op- portunity to All." If Railroads Had Been in Existence in 1787 They Would Have Come Under Same Fed- eral Control and Law as the Navigable Waterways, Said Law Controlling and Operat- ing Both Within and Without the Individual State. \ the state wherein they are located would be entirely under state law, but any insurance company that predetermines and declares to do an interstate business should, of course, be under Federal law, and the greatest benefits possible would accrue, particularly in the case of life insurance companies, both to the company and to the insured. There is little doubt that in the United States, more than in any other country in the world, the great trusts have fastened their hold upon the public to the people's great detriment, and this result has been brought about principally through their ability to prevent competition by annihilating serious competitors, due to special benefits and accruing advantages obtained from transportation. As stated before, the Constitution (by the implication contained in its grant to Congress of control over inter- state commerce) placed all navigable waterways under Federal control and law, said law operating both within and without the state. Why did they do so."" Simply be- cause these waterways were then the only important exist- ing arteries of transportation for interstate commerce articles. Now, if the railroads had also been in existence at that time and were then the main arteries of transporta- tion, instead of or in addition to the navigable waterways, it would seem absurd to say that the railroads would not have also been understood from the beginning to be/ in- cluded under the grant of control over interstate eom- merce. Jurisdiction over them would consequently Mve also been taken by Congress and the Federal Government, exactly as such jurisdiction was assumed over the navi- gable waterways; and it is extremely probable that such jurisdiction would have been given, by the framers of the Constitution, over the railroads both as to their interstate and intrastate activities ; there being just as much reason for this as for giving to the Federal Government control over aU matters of admiralty. There can be little or no question about it. Jurisdiction over the railroads would have been so granted because both the railroads and the waterways would have been existing, at that time, for [28] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL •J exactly the same purpose and function, to-wit, to serve as arteries of transportation for interstate articles. Par- ticular attention is here called to the fact that it has been the general practice of all civilized countries of the world to maintain in all ages their arteries of transportation to-wit, their navigable waterways and railroads, and, wherever established, their public highways, on terms of exact equality for all their citizens. To-day the twentieth century arteries of transporta- tion are principally the railroad means of transportation, and the United States must, if she does her proper duty, maintain same on exact terms of equality to all, just the same as England, Germany, and France, etc., to-day see to it that their railroad means of transportation are main- tained on terms of absolute equality to all. How has it been with us in the past, and how is it to-day ? It is common history now that in the earlier days of our railroading, certain advantages were given by way of direct rebate ; to-day, although in other forms than direct rebating, the advantages to a privileged few are greater than ever, for, notwithstanding the laws against rebating or allowing advantages to one shipper, not ob- t tainable by another, there is no one familiar with this* subject who does not know that certain trusts and a pri- vileged few have tremendous special advantages in trans- portation over the ordinary plain manufacturer or con cern, whether it be in the following forms of indirect rebat ing or other modifications thereof, viz: In pipe lines running on a railroad's prop- erty and the charging of higher prices for all other modes of transportation. In bookkeeping systems relative to railroad supplies bought. In warehouse costs, privileges, or advan- tages. In private ownership of railroad cars, small railroads, etc. In refusal to run a siding from [29] Digitized by Microsoft® Railroads the Twen- tieth Cen- tury Ar- teries of Oommerce. Railroading and Rebating. Method* of Indirect Rebating. Benefits of a Privileged Few. Iniquitous Antharcite Goal Combine. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL the railroad to competitive coal mines, or coal, mineral, or fruit lands. In refusal of cars to such competitive concerns, or giving insufficient number of cars to commercially move their pro- ducts. In railroad affiliation and control over allied concerns, as is evidenced in the anthracite coal combine where, by indirect methods, a system of tremendous advantages (indirect rebates) ac- crues to a privileged few. The Anthracite Coal Combine is one of the most iniquitous conspiracies of modern times, resulting in much injury to the great majority of our people. The system used, although not understood by many, is perfectly simple. The invisible, but none the less real, railroad affiliation and control of anthracite coal mines so arranges matters that there is little or no profit to any concern from the actual working of said mines alone, but that there is a profit to the railroad in freight charges in many cases of from 200 to 300 per cent. — simply another form of freight advantages to a privileged few, and therefore only another form of indirect rebating. Thus have the railroads and their allied concerns stifled independent anthracite coal competition, and con- trolled for themselves 75 to 80 per cent, of said coal min- ing. This control started in the year 1898. The fol- lowing table shows the tremendous advances of coal prices (and resultant burden to the people) since the said control was established, and is most illuminating: Wholesale Prices at Tidewater. Table Showing Advances in Coal Prices. Egg Coal- Chestnut - Percentage of advance since forma- tion of trusts or combines. 1898. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. $3,096 .$5.25 $5.30 $5.80 $5.30 .$6.82 120. % 2.97 5.50 5.55 5.55 5.55 6.94 133.7% [30] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL So the benefits to certain privileged classes exist to-day just the same, only they involve much larger amounts than under the old-time direct railroad rebating system because of the greater business now transacted. Some one, however, may say all this is overdrawn ; it is impossible for any railroad to charge 200 to 300 per cent, profit for hauling coal from Pennsylvania to the seaboard ; neither can freight rebates be made to-day. To any such we furnish absolute proofs, viz: — ^Report and findings of Interstate Commerce Commission, August, 1915: The commission denounces certain practices of the coal-carrying roads and makes a drastic order against further continuance of them. The decision deals with these matters in the following findings, as stated in the syllabus of the decision : "The respondents, by means of trackage arrangements and the free transportation to junction points in the min- ing regions of coal exchanged by their allied coal com- panies, have extended the advantages of interline trans- portation to their coal companies, to the prejudice of other coal shippers to whom interline transportation at joint rates have been denied. Respondents are required to establish through routes and publish joint through rates applicable thereto. "Anthracite coal is a low-grade commodity, which is transported in vast quantities in trains of maximum ton- nage. The tonnage loaded in each car is much greater than the loading of most other classes of traffic. Most of the anthracite tonnage is shipped from collieries whose daily production, measured in carloads, is very large. These conditions tend toward lower operating costs. "Concessions and offsets granted by respondents to their allied coal companies in the form of interest charges, royalty earnings, the use of valuable property at inade- quate rentals, the free use of the carriers' funds and [31] Digitized by Microsoft® Decision of Interstate Commerce Gom.m.ission, August, 1916. Unlawful Concessions — Unlawful Rebates. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL credit, or by other means, are as pernicious as direct cash rebates. Such concessions and offsets are unlawful. "Lateral allowances paid to a coal shipper in ac- cordance with an agreement, alleged to be additional com- pensation for the use of a facility furnished by the shipper, are unlawful rebates." The railroads made respondents in the case are the Central Railroad of New Jersey ; Philadelphia & Reading ; the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western; Lehigh Valley; Erie ; WUkesbarre & Eastern ; New York, Susquehanna & Western; New York, Ontario & Western; the Pennsyl- vania ; the Northern Central ; and the Delaware & Hudson. Inter Com- pany Rail- road Invest- ments to Equalize Interest. Attacks Coal Control by Railroads. The commission takes the opportunity, in the conclu- sion of its consideration of the case, to express an opinion of the manner in which the railroads have exercised ownership and control of coal properties. It says: "We cannot overlook the fact that some force has brought the production and sale of most of the tonnage of this commodity under their control. If they established excessive rates on anthracite they became the beneficiaries of conditions which were prejudicial to the business of the individual operator or shipper. The power to fix freight rates on this commodity was the opportunity to confiscate property if the carrier so willed. "Since 1908 the Delaware & Hudson Company has invested $15,000,000 in the securities of electric raUways and $6,000,000 in anthracite coal lands. We have re- ferred to the Erie's bond issue of $32,000,000 in 1901, representing its investment in the Pennsylvania Coal Com- pany, and the bond issue of the Lehigh Valley Railroad in 1905, representing its investment of $17,000,000 in the property of Cox Brothers & Co. We have referred to the fact that several of these carriers are guarantors of the bonds of the Temple Iron Company. The Central [32] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Railroad Company of New Jersey is guarantor of $16,- 000,000 bonds issued by the Lehigh and Wilkesbarre Coal Company, and the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company is guarantor of $11,500,000 bonds issued by the Lehigh Valley Coal Company. Giving consideration to these matters and to the investment made by these carriers in the stocks and bonds of the coal companies and the un- secured loans and advances they have extended to the coal companies, it is apparent that the capital borrowed by these carriers is not only the capital required for their transportation needs, but also the capital required to mine and market 80 per cent, of the 70,000,000 tons of anthracite coal produced annually. Practices Called Inherently Unlawful. "After a careful review of the record we are impressed with the inherent unlawfulness of the rates and practices established by these carriers, which clearly are the out- growth of past conditions, wherein the carriers were pro- ducers, shippers, transporters, and vendors of the com- modity. If the rates they established for transportation were excessive, it resulted in no hardship to their mining and selling operations, because the excessive profits from the transportation service offset the absence of profits in their mining and selling operations and high rates elimi- nated the competing shipper from the markets. "If the record in this case were barren of evidence as to income, revenues, and low operating costs resulting from the transportation of this commodity, the mandatory language of the act to regulate commerce would require removal of the unlawful discrimination, preferences, and advantages which have for many years been extended by these carriers to their allied and controlled coal companies and which operate to the prejudice of the individual shippers of this commodity. "The conduct of these carriers, extending over a long period of years, in granting to their allied coal companies [33] Digitized by Microsoft® Unlawful- ness of Rates and Practices of Railroad Carriers. Excessive Profits of Rates of Transportor- tion Offset Absence of Profits from Mining. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL concessions from, and offsets against, their established tariff rates, presents very strong evidence that the rates on anthracite coal, which these carriers established, are excessive. These coal companies ship 80 per cent, of the total production, and if a substantial reduction is made in the tariff rates its full effect will fall upon but 20 per cent, of the tonnage shipped. If the great purpose of the act to regulate commerce is to be carried out, we must require that such tariff rates on this commodity shall be established as can be maintained on the shipments of all shippers." Rebating in favor Lehigh Coal ^ Navigation Co., from New York Times, Mar. IS, 1916. JERSEY CENTRAL FACES PENALTY OF $4,000,000 Convicted on 185 Counts of Rebating to Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co. {Special to the New York Times.) Trenton, N. J., March 11, 1915. — The Central Rail- road of New Jersey was found guilty by a jury in the United States Court here to-day on 185 separate counts, charging the granting of rebates and concessions to the Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company on shipments of coal from Pennsylvania to points in New Jersey and New York. The Federal Government will demand the full penalty for the offenses. This amounts to about $4,000,000, and a fine for this amount may be imposed when sentence is pronounced later. The minimum fine for 185 counts is $185,000. The indictment against the Central Railroad of New Jersey was found on December 1st, under the Elkins Act. Investigators of the Department of Justice found that the Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company had an agree- ment with the Central Railroad of New Jersey by which [34] Digitized by IVIicrosoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL it received what were termed on the books as "lateral allowances." These allowances were made only under specific circumstances, which took into account certain amounts of freight hauled, and also specific destinations. It was charged by the investigators that through this indirect method of favoring a specific coal company the railroad has discriininated in favor of the Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company as far back as 1871. AS IN ANTHRACITE COAL, SO IN MEAT PACKING TRANSPORTATION Chicago, Nov. 11th, 1916. — Fines totalling more than .$171,000 were assessed by Federal Judge Landis to-day against Swift & Co., packers, and several railroads, con- victed of violating the Interstate Commerce Act. In most of the cases the charges were rebating or shipping less than carload shipments at carload rates. Swift & Co. were fined $60,000 ; the Pennsylvania Rail- road, $20,000; the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railroad, $20,000, and the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad, $20,000 in one case and $50,000 in an- other. In addition, fines ranging from $100 to $1,000 were assessed against the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad, the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad and the Chicago, Mil- waukee & St. Paul. These fines were in most instances for failure to comply with the twenty-eight-hour cattle law. The Pennsylvania fine and the $20,000 fine against the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis were for rebating to the W. H. Merritt Company, a Chicago Board of Trade firm, while the $50,000 fine was for rebating to B. A. Eckhart, head of the Eckhart Milling Company. Mr. Eckhart was tried for the same offence some time ago, but the case was thrown out of court by Federal Judge Anderson. [851 Digitized by Microsoft® Rebating to Large Meat Packers. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Our Pro- posals Cure for Direct or Indirect Railroad Rebating. Under our "Equal Opportunity for All" plan, every transportation line or railroad predetermining and pre- declaring to engage in interstate commerce transportation (and unless they so determined and declared, they could not engage in any interstate commerce transportation) would be Federally incorporated and under one Federal set of laws, which would give the Federal Government power over said transportation lines, both within and without the individual states, equal to the power it now exercises over the National banks ; and no one gainsays that the government can and does make the National banks com- pletely fulfill their proper duties to the government and the people. If the Federal Government controls the National banks, why should it not also control the interstate trans- portation lines, particularly as the latter are far more interstate in function and fact than are the National banks? With one set of Federal laws, the government, if need be, can place government officers in every transportation line of the country, to report to the Department of Justice any action, direct or indirect, that would tend to give any advantage whatsoever to anyone in transportation costs. In fact, the Federal laws could then be, and should be, so severe that if any interstate transportation line did, di- portation.^ rectly or indirectly, or in any manner whatsoever, give to anyone advantages in transportation costs, its managing officers should be subject to jail sentence for a term of years, alsp, it should lose its charter, and could, at the option of Congress, then be taken over by the Federal Government. Government Supervision and Control of all Interstate Means of Trans- Mr. Alfred P. Thom, counsel to the Railway Executive Advisory Committee in Washington, November 25th, 1916, speaking for the large railroads of the Country, asked for compulsory Federal incorporation of all inter- [36] Digitized by IVIicrosoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL ds I ofV state railroads. So that we see that even the railroads themselves have found that the confusion and chaos conflicting jurisdictions of forty-eight States, — making with the Federal authority forty-nine masters with their babel of statutes and bedlam of attempted regulation and inspection, — ^has now become simply unbearable. I call your special attention to the fact that the only alterna- tive to a more centralized control and regulation of rail- roads is the dangerous experiment of government owner- ship and operation which is undesirable both to labor and the people of the United States, and is entirely unneces- sary if our "Equal Opportunity" proposals are put into force. So that our proposals, instead of being revolu- tionary and destructive, are but natural and preventive. Constituted as our Country is politically, government ownership either of transportation means or natural re- sources would make for inefficiency as against the great efficiency of private ownership or even government owner- ship under a monarchical form of government, — and for us to adopt, under our political system, such government ownership, might in time easily result in great disaster or even economic destruction of our people and government. The Railroads Themselven Now Asking for Federal In- corporation. The present confusion and bedlam of jurisdiction cannot much longer continue in railroad and other transportation means. The Federal Government, through the Interstate Com- merce Commission, has for some years limited the rail- roads' freight and passenger rates, and hence has also limited their ability to make profit. This can be borne in the present prosperous times. Whenever we experience, however, a great commercial depression extending over a number of years, it is not at all improbable that the railroads themselves will demand that if the Federal Government elects to limit the railroads' profits that it must also take the added responsibility of paying the railroads' bills, which would mean Government ownership [37] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Means of Tran»- portation in Oermany, France, and England. \ •A In Germany Ooverrvment Ownership of Means of Trans- portation Prevents Ducrimi- nation. of such railroad transportation means, — the result of which would be highly detrimental to labor and our people. Our proposals are the only antidote we know for Government ownership, which otherwise will come rapidly to the front, and hence instead of being revolutionary our proposals are intensely conservative and, if adopted, will prevent the great calamity under our political system of Government ownership of our transportation means. To prove that Federal law for all means of interstate transportation, with rigid government control and super- vision, would absolutely prohibit any transportation ad- vantages to anyone, we have only to compare the United States in this regard with the principal foreign countries of Europe, viz: — Germany, France, and England. The trusts and combinations in these countries are propor- tionately even greater than in the United States, and yet there is no trust problem in the sense that one set of in- dividuals is debarred from certain industries and walks of life, due to want of obtaining transportation ad- vantages vouchsafed to others. In Germany all means of transportation are owned by the government, which absolutely guarantees equality to all in transportation costs. Notwithstanding that Ger- many is the hot-bed of trusts and combinations, stUl, due to the fact of maintaining absolute equality to all in trans- portation, no trust problem exists there to the detriment of the nation or its people. Trusts and combinations have been formed in the past five to ten years to a greater extent in Germany than in any other country in the world. The total number of cartels (trusts) in Ger- many is estimated at present to be between four and five hundred, and the number of articles con- trolled by them about 400. At present there are about a hundred international cartels (trusts) of which the German cartels (trusts) form a [38] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR A L L part. These cover a few dozen chemicals, steel rails, tubes, rolling mill products, steel billets, wire, wire nails, woven wire, needles, screws, enameled ware, zinc, lead, nickel, copper, alum- inum, and the manufactures of these metals, porcelain, plate glass, cement, kaolin, rubber goods, clay, leather goods, velvet, cloth for neck- ties, silk thread, schappe, mufflers, illustrated postal cards, moving picture films, and a few other products. Most of the international cartels of Germany are with Austria and Bel- gium, the most conspicuous one with France is that of the Velvet and Plush Cartel (Trust) of Germany, with headquarters at Crefeld, with an allied French syndicate with headquarters at Lyons, France. On Wednesday, February 11th, 1914), Dr. Karl Rathgen, member of the faculty of the Colonial Institute ^of Hamburg, representing the Prussian Department of ! Education in the capacity of Exchange Professor at ' Columbia University, New York City, delivered an address on "Germany's Economic Position." He stated that "The industrial awakening of Germany oc- curred about twenty years ago, and since that time no other country in the world has made such rapid industrial progress." Notwithstanding the tremendous formation of trusts and combinations in Germany during the past twenty years, Dr. Rathgen states, relative thereto, the follow- ing: "The absence of a 'trust problem' in Ger- many is due in a large measure to the fact that the government ownership of all means of trans- ■ portation has not permitted the development of a system of discrimination by means of which monopolies could be built up." [89] Digitized by Microsoft® Absence a Trust. Problem Germany. of Discrimina- tion in Form of Freight Benefits Impossible in Germany . Same Condi- tions Will Be Obtained Here Under Our "Equal Opportunity System." EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL France and England's Trans- portation Means. \ In France and England the railroads and all means of transportation are under one set of government laws, and in both these countries, through one set of government Federal laws, inequalities in transportation costs are im- possible ; and hence in these countries, the same as in Germany, although they have proportionately many more trusts and combinations than the United States, there exists no trust problem to the people's detriment. National Resources. The Chief Asset of Any Coun- try is the Rising Generation. The Paramount Issue — Equal Op- portunity for All. One of the most, if not the most, serious menaces to our country is the inequality here of these transportation ad- vantages, giving benefits to a privileged class denied to all others, which, in the industries of oil, coal, meat, certain food supplies, metals, etc., has acted to stifle all serious legitimate outside competition, thereby absolutely pre- venting "Equal Opportunity for All." The Federal Government should also control the ownership and development of minerals and water powers. No man has made, or can make, them; but all men need them. Access to them by all is necessary to give "Equal Opportunity to All." No individual group or state should be permitted to withhold them from the people of the country, or to limit their use by unjust regulation, ex- orbitant charges, or unequal conditions. The chief asset of any country is its rising generation, and all countries, and particularly our free and great United States, should insist as a paramount issue that "Equal Opportunity" be vouchsafed to its young men. To prove that such opportunity does not at all exist to- day, I would ask you, reader, if you wished to place your son or some other promising young man in a profitable business in which he might ultimately rise to proprietor- ship, what business would you select as worth the effort of thorough preliminary preparation.'' You know per- fectly well that he might just as well commit financial suicide as to undertake to engage in some of the great lines of industry in our country, viz: [40] Digitized by IVIicrosoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL In the Oil Business in competition with the existing Oil Trust. In the Coal Business in competition with the Coal Combine, or the railroads directly or indi- rectly carrying coal from their own or affiliated concerns' coal mines. In the meat packing business. Or even in the primary steel business. ly.'' Simply because he would not have, in access Lack of Dnal resources and in transportation, "Equal Op- ^9««' Op- ty" with a certain privileged class. Please note for All. lificant fact that all of those industries into which lot enter involve bulky articles where transporta- ids the key. I are, however, well assured that he can enter, and il terms, in many other businesses, some of them le manufacture of almost any textile, such as silks, , woolens, worsteds, or in any other manufacturing ere transportation or natural resources are not mt factors. Such, for example, are the produc- drugs, small devices, or in fact of any device or icle which is of such nature as to entail compara- mall transportation charges. Mark you, the in- you or your son cannot enter are always those ailroad freights are heavy, and where access to resources are necessary. efore, you must honestly admit that the reason lack of "Equal Opportunity for All" is simply ther directly or indirectly, many advantages in or otherwise are obtained by a special privileged r shipments over transportation lines, as against rho cannot obtain these advantages. The young man of to-day under the present unequal conditions and opportunities says: "What's the use.'' Special privileges have all the fat things of the land. I may be a second John D. Rockefeller in brains, but I [41] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OP P O RTUNITY FOR ALL Combiner tions and Trusts. Youth. Transporta- tions and "Equal Op- portunity." J cannot start in business and work same to a successful issue in certain industries such as oil, coal, meat pack- ing, steel, iron, etc.," for he feels and knows that under the present advantageous discrimination given to a special privileged class, and denied to him, he would be attempt- ing the impossible. With our "Equal Opportunity for All" plan attained, not in theory, but in actual fact, our young man must have a different vision. His thoughts must then be: "I know that I have equity in one set of laws over the entire country for the same thing, and 'Equal Opportunity' with all others, assured me. If I do not succeed it is because of something lacking in myself." Hence the present socialism and discontentedness must give way to sunny optimism and to high purpose unknown under our present confused and chaotic conditions. Right-minded persons do not, and will not, decry com- binations or trusts in the United States, provided they are accorded here only such advantages as all others can also obtain by similar intelligence, application, determina- tion, and industry. They do decry, and will continue to decry, combinations and trusts in the United States when coupled, in certain of our industries, with control of na- tural resources and advantageous discriminations in means of transportation to the benefit of a certain privileged class and to the detriment of all others. The absolute cure for this, the greatest of our curses, and for the stifling of the energies of our youth is the maintaining by the government at any and all costs con- ditions that will insure absolutely no discrimination under any circumstances by any interstate means of transporta- tion or by any monopoly of natural resources. With one set of Federal laws for all interstate means of transporta- tion and all natural resources, operating both within the individual state and without the state, backed by the proper government supervision and control, we can posi- tively accomplish here in the United States what has been accomplished under one set of government laws in Eng- land, France, and Germany. [42] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALI- We do not need government ownership of our coun- . i try's means of transportation or of the coal and iron i'^ mines to make "Equal Opportunity for All." We do need, ^ however, and must have, one set of Federal laws, with lowever, stringent government control and supervision, about "Equal Opportunity for All." to bring Cfovernment Ownership in the United States and Not at All Necessary. Doomsday will arrive before we get it, either in trans- portation or in business, with our present system of con- fusion and chaos caused by 48 individual states making hundreds — ^yes, thousands — of different state laws for the same thing, a considerable proportion of which arc contradictory, and many impossible of proper execution. In this connection it might be well to refer to the recent attempt of the State of Texas to compel the railroads to discriminate in favor of Texas against the citizens of the remaining states of the country, also to such absurdities as have occurred where one railroad which winds in and out between Texas and Arkansas has to put screens in all the car windows every time the trains cross into Arkansas and to take them out every time they cross back* into Texas. History records that when the laws of a Country become so chaotic as to be unenforceable, resulting in benefits to a privileged few and not in equality to all, the people turn to Socialism and rebellion. The French and the American revolutions are recent examples of this. The intention of the creators and framers of our present form of government was that it should be the best in the world and that equal rights should be vouchsafed to all. If the people can truly rule, securing "Equality of Opportunity" it will actually be the best government in the world. But how can the people so rule under our present inequitable system of forty-nine different juris- dictions, resulting in many contradictory laws for the same thing — and in some cases laws, that are impossible of execution — a system where one state pretends to extend its jurisdiction over forty-seven other states, when in fact f 43 1 f/Ohaotic and Unen- forceable Laws Result in Socialism and Rebellion. Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL it is utterly impossible for such state to extend its juris- diction beyond its own borders, either legally or other- The People Must Rule in Fact Not in Theory. Our Courts. Advance of Socialism. Cure for Soeialitm. Our people must rule, not in theory but in fact and under a system of actual "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," but if our laws are so chaotic as not to be properly enforceable, how can the people so rule? Notwithstanding how you philosophize or try to ex- plain, — under our present confusion of laws the people know things are inequitable and not right, and that al- though our governmental system calls for "government of the people, by the people and for the people," the people to-day do not in reality properly rule. It is difficult, of course, and in fact almost impossible for them to properly locate the cause which produces this result and naturally they blame the courts and there is a demand for recall of our judges, etc. Now, our courts are all right! They have no alternative but to interpret the laws as they exist. What is wrong, and decidedly wrong, is our chaotic con- dition of forty-nine different systems of law for the same A thing, and no equity can ever exist for all the people tw the United States until same is changed. Observing minds must be struck with the great advance of Socialism during the past few years, nor is this advance confined to any particular section. The people may be told that they rule, but gradually they find out that they do not, — and hence the great advance of Socialism and unrest in our midst. With the carrying out of our plans of "Equal Opportunity for All" the people can and will actually rule. More than this no people can do, and hence there can be no cause or justification for the development and growth of Socialism amongst us. With a favorable Con- gress and President our present system can be [44] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL easily changed (as called for by Laws 1 to 6 herein) and equal benefits .and opportunity in fact accrue to aU our people. Some there are at the present time who are advocating the taking over by the Federal Government of all the h and telephone companies in the United States, entlemen who display so much zeal in this cause ■aged in business, as the writer is, both in America Europe, they would know and thereby would be contrast and appreciate the wonderful efficiency Jell Telephone System here as against the great cy of the telephone systems in the large cities pe, notably Paris and Vienna, and even London rlin, to say nothing of the horrible service ountry districts and the smaller cities. If they experience on both sides of the water, they would satisfied to preserve this wonderful example of efficiency in the service of the public known as Company as a corporation, but under a Federal ration Law, providing one set of Federal laws g both within and without the state where domi- cover all its operations throughout the country, sequently under simple and effective Federal su- 1, instead of under contradictory and confused I Federal supervision by forty-nine different juris- That is the way to make sure that the best pos--^<^ tilts will accrue to the American public. telephone companies and the telegraph companies aited States, and the great Bell Company in par- stand in just the same interstate relation as the •ansportation lines of the country. The Bell /'s and other companies' business activities con- sist in selling the service of transportation of intelligence, either by the human voice or by other signs transmitted over the wire by electric current, and under our "Equal Opportunity for All" proposals, such activities come un- der Proposition No. 2, namely, if a telephone or telegraph company predetermines and predeclares its intention to The Bell Telephone Company, the Tele- graph Com- panies, and the United States Public. 1461 tizedT) Digitized'by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Results of Suits Powerful Trusts by the United States. do an interstate commerce business it must be Federally incorporated (and if it does not so incorporate it could not collect any charge for interstate service). For the Bell Company is dealing in the transportation of an ar- ticle, — the human voice, the human thought, in interstate transactions — exactly as the other transportation lines of the country are dealing in the transportation of people or articles of freight. When the Bell Company and all telephone and telegraph companies are federally incorporated, the Federal Government can, to all ex- tent that the public interest requires exercised the same supervision and control over the telephone and telegraph business as it will under our proposals over railroad and express companies, or as it does at the present time over \ the National banks. It can see to it that the toll charges are just, equitable and^air to all users. With such super- vision and control'lhere is absolutely no occasion for gov- ernment ownership of telephone and telegraph companies. iThe present splendid management will be continued, and the rights of the people will be secured. The Bell Telephone Company is now a national tele- phone company in its ownership of stock and in the great, nation-wide service rendered. In its operations, the serv- ice to the public far exceeds the service rendered to its individual owners or to any individual state, and with Federal incorporation thereof, placing all its business ac- tivities, both interstate and intrastate, under one set of Federal laws, and, if necessary, with government super- vision and control, nothing more could possibly be desired or required for the public benefit or public good. The United States, after spending immense sums, won its suits against some of the most powerful trusts in the United States, but with what result for the benefit of the people? Take, for instance, the result of the suit against the "Oil Trust." After winning this suit the government, owing to state laws, was compelled to return the Oil Trust to its individual constituent corporations or concerns- — result: some twenty-two or more separate corporations, more expensive system of operation ; and immediately [46] Digitized by IVIicrosoft® i EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL > thereafter the price of oil, gasoline, etc., advanced con- siderably. With one Federal set of laws in operation the trust's duties would be clearly defined and failure to comply therewith would be punishable by fine and by the imprisonment for a long term of years of all officers or directors thereof who were cognizant, or who, in view of their respective positions, should have been cognizant of such violation of the law. This would mark at once the end of illegal operations of all trusts and combinations. There have been many things charged against the Standard Oil Company which in many instances were not based upon the actual facts, but with forty-nine different systems of law it is difficult to know the facts either for the trusts or for the public ; whereas with one set of Fed- eral laws in all states, operating the same all over the country, there would then be no more violations of the laws by trusts in the United States than there are to-day — under one set of governmental laws — ^by trusts in Eng- land, France, or Germany. It may be urged by some reader: What, under these plans of reorganization of our governmental system, wiU be left of the "State's Rights" which some of us prize so highly .'' The answer to such an objection is that to the states will be left aK control, and exclusive control, over the land within the state, the buildings and all physical property within the state, and over all business activities which are confined to the limits of the state boundaries. Why should any state control more? Or why, in fact, should any state desire more.'' The object of the state government is not to magnify itself, but to secure the wel- fare of its citizens. It is to the interest of the state, as well as of the nation and of the individual, that the powers of government should be well distributed and efficiently exercised, and if the results of our plans are for the benefit of the people as a whole they will be happy as citizens of states as well as citizens of the nation. The people rule in this country, and under our plans they will rule more effectively than before. To reduce the powers of a state and increase those of the nation is merely a choice by the [47] Digitized by Microsoft® Under our Proposals There Would be Little or no Viola- tions of our Laws by Trusts or Comr- binations. i State Rights. Individual States Will, Under Our Plan, Have Practically the Same Income, But Materially Lessened Expendi- tures. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL citizen of what instrumentality he will select to carry out his purposes, and if as a whole those purposes are more effectively carried out hy the proposed change every one will be benefited and none injured. But it wiU be said that the revenues of the state, its taxing power, must be conserved in order that the state may properly exert its legitimate powers of local govern- ment. Here again we find a great advantage in our plan. Nothing is more distressing to contemplate, nothing more chaotic, than our tax laws. This is admitted by those most directly concerned with our state governments, who dare not enforce them literally, who are continually com- plaining of them and revising them, but who never dare assert that they are satisfactory. There are certain subjects of taxation which the sym- metry of our plan and the public interest require to be na- tional. Such are the taxation of credits, which, while collectable at some point within a state, are actually spread over the whole country, and the taxation of other quick assets such as goods traveling or about to travel in interstate commerce, the location of which is merely ac- cidental. These are proper subjects for national taxation alone. As a matter of fact, they are not reached to any extent by state taxation now, but the conflicting tax laws of the several states do hamper business and burden in- dustry. But there will remain to the states practically everything that they reach by their taxation now, while at the same time the demands on their resources will be reduced. The question of public expenditures and public reve- nues is one which under present conditions, and particu- larly in view of the great extension of governmental func- tions, is of the highest interest at the present time. How wiU our proposals affect this? First, as to the states and localities: they will be re- lieved of enormously expensive commissions, bureaus, and investigations, by which they not only interfere with the [48] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL interstate activities of their citizens and industries, but greatly increase the burdens of their taxpayers. These state and local commissions, whether temporary or per- manent; the investigating committees appointed by state legislatures, and the State Attorney Generals' investiga- tions, all of which cost the people enormous sums of money, are concerned almost wholly with railroads and other interstate means of transportation, with the manu- facture and sale of commodities, with the regulation of conditions of labor, and with other matters which are in fact, and should be in practice, of interstate and not of local concern. Of all this expense the individual states will be relieved. Such expenses (which have mainly to do with articles of interstate commerce) have been duplicated and duplicated by many states adjoining one another and particularly so in all of our industrial states to the great financial detriment of our people. The expenses of the individual States have in the past ten years increased to such an extent that they are assum- ing alarming proportions. You will kindly note that these tremendous increases in expenses in the individual states are confined almost exclusively to the industrial States, which are now trying to create new forms of taxes in order to raise revenue sufficient to meet their outgo. As these expenses have so materially increased only in the Industrial States, it goes without saying that the great proportion of these increased expenses, amounting to millions of dollars annually, is due as stated above to the excessive commissions of one kind or another to in- vestigate conditions relative to hours of labor, conditions of labor, minimum wage, etc., etc. Such investigation has entirely to do with articles predetermined to flow in Inter- state Commerce, and, therefore, according to our "Equal Opportunity Plan," should be controlled federally, when there would be but one expense instead of twenty-five to thirty duplications thereof. Some of these Industrial States have already adopted a State Income Tax and New York State was recently [49] Digitized by Microsoft® By our Proposals Millions of Dollars WiU he Saved Anmaally by the Individual States. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL An Ounce of Prevention Against a Pound of Cure. seriously considering and advocating a State Income Tax on all incomes over $1,000 per annum. We, therefore, believe that the adoption of our Equal Opportunity pro- position would be a great benefit to taxpayers as well as producing equal opportunity throughout the country. While our plan would thus reduce state and local ex- penditures, and hence the amount to be raised by taxes, it would still leave to the states for taxation all the prop- erty physically within the state, land, buildings, ma- chinery, and fixed assets generally, all inheritances pass- ing under the laws of the state, all local excises and licenses, all industries and trade limited to the boundaries of the state. In brief, the state would retain practically all its actual revenues, but would have very much less occasion for expenditures. To the Federal Government, on the other hand, is open the opportunity for a method of taxation much more scientific than is now possible. Controlling and regulat- ing interstate transactions, and extending such control and regulation to the source within the individual state, it can not only strengthen its control by the ownership of the taxing powers strictly relevant thereto, but also, as a matter of revenue, it can reach all these activities by taxation and can, year by year, adjust the amount of taxation to the current requirements of the government. At present Congress has no idea of a budget or of a balance sheet, and this is natural where revenues are from miscellaneous and uncertain sources and spending is not co-ordinated. The placing of all our great interstate businesses, production, transportation, trade, under ex- clusive Federal jurisdiction will enable estimates to be made and revenue to be secured and expended with a pre- cision not possible under our present unscientific and confused conditions. One of the great merits which we claim for our "Equal Opportunity for AU" proposals is that we shall by this means be able to act in the common interest, and not [50] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL merely to make repairs after calamities have happened, but to prevent calamities altogether. The mark of ef- ficiency and the great achievement of modern civilization is the reaching of the stage where things are done right in the beginning rather than simply sought to be made right after they have gone -wrong. In fact, it is not only better but easier to prevent than to cure. Thus, in medicine we strive to prevent illness, and especially to guard against the spread of a pestilence by checking the con- tagion at the source. Yellow fever used to scourge Ha- vana year by year, and it never could have been stopped by waiting for people to come down with the fever and then administering medicine. The medical service of the United States Army discovered the source of the con- tagion, removed the cause, and no more medicine or nurs- ing is necessary because there are no more cases. A great calamity which lately came upon the country in the foot and mouth disease among cattle was due to lax inspection by one or two individual states, whose neglect caused a continent-wide disaster. Since the cattle afflicted with the disease were raised and predestined for transport into other states, they should, according to our doctrine, have been under Federal law and control, and consequently should have been taken under the care of the Federal Gov- ernment, which alone can act quickly and uniformly all V over the continent, and then this terrible menace to our food supply, to our pockets, and to our health could have been checked before serious harm was done. Again, in law, the highest power of a court is the proper exercise of the power of injunction, which prevents great wrongs from being done, wrongs for which often no adequate damages can be given once they have happened. Or again the law forbids the carrying of weapons with which crimes may be committed, or the sale of liquor un- der circumstances where its consumption might lead to crime. This is better for the public and for the possible criminal himself than simply locking him up in a jail or taking his life after he has slain another. [51] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Control of Predeter- mined Interstate Articles Should Begin at the Beginning Within the Individual State. Method of Putting "Hqnal Op- portunity for All" Proposals into Operation. Illustrations might be multiplied, but are hardly neces- sary. If an act done within a state is predetermined by its very object and characteristics to operate upon the people of other states and to affect their interests, the time to prevent, control, or regulate the act is before or while it is being done, not after the operation upon the interests of the citizens of the other states has been ac- tually begun. It follows, therefore, that articles prede- termined and predeclared for interstate commerce should come under Federal control before, not after, they cross the state line, and that such control should begin at the beginning, not when part of the work is done and cannot conveniently be undone. The adulteration of food, for example, is prevented and the conditions of cleanliness and labor under which it is manufactured, should be, and under the present pure food law are, taken care of at the factory, not after the package crosses the state line. We ask that the same effective remedy be extended, and we claim, therefore, for our plans of "Equal Opportunity for All," not only jus- tice, but also economy and efficiency in the highest degree. Furthermore in 1787 the original States placed under Federal control and law those things which had then be- come more of general than of individual state interest. Whereas those things were few in 1787, now with our wonderful later development they have become many, and we ask only, by our proposals, that the same prin- ciple be applied to those many things that have now be- come more of general or interstate interest and less of any one state interest, as was applied in 1787 to the few things of that day; and that the law relative to these many things of to-day be made Federal just the same as the few things of 1787 were then made Federal. Our proposals, therefore, as you will see, are not revo- lutionary, but natural. The practical method of putting into operation the ideas here suggested would be an extremely simple one. [52] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Each person, firm, or corporation in or about to en- gage in business and desiring their business activity to extend beyond the borders of the state wherein they are domiciled, must file a certificate with a proper depart- ment of the Federal Government, signifying their inten- tion to do an interstate commerce business ; that is to say, that the articles produced or sold, purchased or handled by the proprietors of the business are to be shipped or consigned by such proprietors beyond the state line or received by them from outside of the state. In which case, if a corporation, it must be incorporated under a Federal Incorporation Act, and if an individual or firm they must take out a Federal license, the effect of which license would be to put them under the same set of laws and conditions as a corporation operating under a Federal Incorporation Act ; and it should be unlawful for any individual, firm, or corporation not filing such cer- tificate to do an interstate commerce business. All such concerns as predetermine and predeclare their intention to embark upon the handling, manufacture, or sale of articles which will be shipped directly into or be received directly from other states — or, in other words, in interstate commerce — shall come exclusively under Fed- eral law as far as their business activities are concerned, which law shall regulate all matters relative to the business both within the state where located or domiciled and with- out the state, and shall include sanitary factory regula- tions and all regulations relative to labor connected with said articles so predetermined and so predeclared tp flow in interstate commerce. Likewise the receiver in New York or other large cities of cotton, grain, farm produce, and the commission mer- chants handling such articles from farmers all over the country will be subject to uniform Federal regulation, whereby those that ship or consign such articles will be impartially protected. If, on the other hand, any individual, firm, or cor- poration desires to confine their business activities en- [63] Digitized by Microsoft® Interstate Business. Protection for the Farmer in our "Equal Oppor- tunity" Plan. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Exclimive Within the Limits of the Individual State. J "Equal Op- portunity" System Easy of Enforce- ment. tirely within the borders of the state where located, then they need file no certificate of interstate business inten- tions, and all such concerns will be debarred from doing an interstate commerce business. In case of a corpora- tion not filing a certificate of interstate business inten- tions, said corporation, however, must be incorporated in the state wherein the business is located, so as to avoid the anomaly of a business enterprise established in one state being governed, in its most vital affairs, by the laws of another state, which is, in fact, in no way interested therein. It may be asked : How can such a system be enforced ? Will it not result that the proprietor of a business not filing a certificate of interstate intentions may nevertheless proceed to sell goods beyond the state line, and if this happens how can a penalty be visited upon such pro- prietor.'' Would it be practical to provide a criminal penalty for such an offense, and how could any govern- mental agency watch for and punish such violation of the proposed system, which in many cases would be com- paratively trifling in importance.? The answer to these questions is a ready one. It is necessary only to provide that in case any owner of a business carries on busines across the line of the state without having filed a certificate of interstate intentions, the contract of sale thus made shall be invalid, with the resulting consequence that no recovery can be had in any court for the goods or for the purchase money pay- able under the terms of such sales. In other words, the purchaser can refuse to pay, merely because his vendor has violated the law in making the sale in question. This penalty to the vendor would prove an effective deterrent to such practice. It is not a criminal penalty, but one automatically enforceable by private persons without the agency of a court or governmental forces at all, and has proved strikingly effective as a means of enforcing laws of a nature similar to the system here proposed. In short, all that is needed are laws of Congress, providing: [S4] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL First — That every person, firm, or corpora- tion predetermining to have their business ac- tivities extend beyond the state wherein they are located must file a certificate with a department of the government, to the effect that they intend to engage in an interstate commerce business, and as such shall be subject exclusively to Fed- eral Interstate Commerce Acts, which Acts shall be extended, of course, to cover wise and salu- tary provisions for the operatives. Second — That all business enterprises en- gaging in interstate business under corporate form shall be incorporated under Federal law. That all persons or individuals engaging in in- terstate commerce business can do so only under a Federal license so as to make them come under the same Federal law as Federally incorporated concerns, which law shall be enacted by Congress for the purpose. The framers of the Constitution were called together by Washington to take counsel upon questions of com- merce, not of politics. From that commercial meeting arose our great nation. In the Constitution which they drew they decreed that all commerce that went beyond the boundaries of a state, and all instruments of such commerce, ships, mails, and money among them, should be under the Federal jurisdiction. As the nation has grown the wisdom of these provisions has been shown more and more, and Congress, under the guidance of the Supreme Court, has exercised with in- creasing courage the powers thus conferred. In 1824 the nation took control of the navigable waters, in 1853 of the building of railroads, in 1863 of the banks, in 1887 of the operation, charges, and contracts of transporta- tion lines, in 1906 of the manufacture and sale of foods and drugs, and in 1909 it assumed the right to tax every corporation in the country for the privilege of doing [55] Digitized by Microsoft® Enlarge- ment of the Constitution by Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL A Wonder- ful Qovern- ment of Equity, Simplicity, and Justice. Recapitu- lation. business, and thereby necessarily the right to say that they should not do business without Federal permission. In the Federal Pure Food Bill (so-caUed) Congress controls within the state all articles of food intended to flow in interstate commerce; right in the same factory, however, it does not control even the same articles when intended for exclusive state use, proving conclusively that the Supreme Court considers the words in the Constitu- tion — "that Congress shall have power to regulate inter- state commerce" — to mean all articles of business ac- tivities flowing between states. Thus have Congress and the Supreme Court met each requirement of advancing national greatness, and now we ask that a further step be taken to meet the greater demands of this greater day. What a wonderful system of government would be ours if the propositions here outlined were put into operation — a system that would be simple, just, and equitable to all. What a mass of evils from which we now suffer would be eradicated! We are at present face to face with grave and vital dangers. Are we to follow, after all our glorious history, in the path of the great Roman Empire of old.? Rome in her day was far more powerful proportion- ately than the United States is now. Equal opportunity was denied, and was indeed impossible of attainment, to the people under the Roman domain. There were then certain favored privileged classes, others could not obtain their opportunities and benefits, and therefore Rome in time crumbled and decayed. Equal Opportunity does not exist to-day in the United States, and can never exist here under the present absurd, unscientific, and destruc- tive state laws, resulting in hundreds of different laws for the same conditions, inevitably bringing about the present confusion and chaos. Equal opportunity for everyone in the United States can be brought about by the adoption of a system pro- [66] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL viding for Federal control — same operating both within the individual states and in interstate relations — over con- cerns that intend and declare their intention to engage to any extent whatever in an interstate commerce busi- ness, and for state control over concerns confining their business activities wholly within the borders of a par- ticular state; providing for a national incorporation law for corporations and a national license law for individuals and firms engaged or intending to engage in any interstate commerce business ; for incorporation by each state of corporations only that transact their business within such state; and for Federal regulation of the ownership and development of natural resources, such as coal and water power, and of contracts of insurance, and of the sale or purchase of interstate securities at public exchanges. The question is a large one — an immense one. The great government of the United States cannot perman- ently eoAst except by giving in fact, not in theory or form, but in actual fact, equal opportunity to each and every one of our people. The question, therefore, is: Shall the nation, by ad- vancing with changing conditions, give to her people and to humanity greater and greater benefits, or shall she deny such benefits to her citizens and leave them, as now, struggling under hundreds of laws conflicting and con- tradictory, and with advantages in so many walks of life enjoyed and obtainable only by a special privileged class? If the latter course be followed, this great government of the United States cannot endure. For the assurance of "Equal Opportunity" to aU the people is the only founda- tion of permanency for any government. Succinctly stated, the following are the propositions and laws which are necessary and required to bring about the "Equal Opportunity" results desired: Law 1. That Congress shall pass a law re- quiring each person, firm, or corporation de- siring their business activities to extend beyond [67] Digitized by Microsoft® Paramount Issue. Laws Required of Congress to Put our "Equal Op- portunity" Proposals Into Operation. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL the borders of the state wherein they are "domi- ciled" to file a certificate with a proper depart- ment of the Federal Government, signifying their intention to do an interstate commerce business ; that is to say, that the "articles" pro- duced or sold, purchased or handled, by the proprietors of the business are to be shipped or consigned by such proprietors beyond the state line or received by them from outside of the state. Law 2. The law shall provide that any such person, firm, or corporation filing such cer- tificate of intention to do such interstate com- merce business shall, if a corporation, be Fed- erally incorporated, and if an individual or firm be Federally licensed, the effect of said license being to put them under the same set of laws and conditions as a corporation operating under a Federal Incorporation Act ; and it shall be unlawful for any individual, firm, or corpora- tion not filing such certificate to do an interstate commerce business. Law 3. The law shall provide that all such concerns that so predetermine and so predeclare their intention to embark upon the handling, manufacture, or sale of articles which wUl be shipped directly into or be received directly from other states — or, in other words, in interstate commerce — shall come exclusively under Federal law so far as their business activities are con- cerned, which law shall regulate all matters relative to the business both within the state where located or domiciled and without the state. Said laws shall include sanitary factory regu- lations and all regulations relative to labor con- nected with said articles so predetermined and so predeclared to flow or travel in interstate com- merce. [58] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL Law If,. The law shall provide that any in- dividual, firm, or corporation not filing a cer- tificate of such interstate business intention will be debarred from doing an interstate commerce business, and shall confine their business activi- ties within the border-line of the states wherein domiciled. No such state corporation shall, however, be incorporated in any state except in the state wherein domiciled. hana 5. The law shall provide that in case any owner of a business not having filed a cer- tificate of such interstate intention, nevertheless carries on business across the line of the state, the contract of sale thus made shall be an invalid one — that is, unenforceable — with the resulting consequence that no recovery thereon can be had in any court. Law 6. The law shall provide that Con- gress shall regulate the ownership and develop- ment of mineral resources and water powers, contracts of insurance, and the sale of securi- ties at public exchanges. While, in the opinion of many of our best legal minds, most, if not all, of these measures are within the scope of the present Constitutional powers of Congress, yet in the interest of precision and to avoid disputes, doubts, and delays, it seems best that Congress should propose, and „ ., the states should pass upon, an amendment to the Con- tional stitution providing that Amendment. "Congress shall have power to regulate and control all establishments engaging in foreign or interstate commerce or producing articles sold or transported in foreign or interstate commerce; said regulation and control shall ex- tend, however, only to the sanitary condition of such establishments and the hours, kind, condi- [69] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL tions, and wages of labor employed therein and the issue of securities thereby; Congress also shall have power to regulate the ownership and development of mineral resources and water powers, contracts of insurance, and the sale of securities at public exchanges; Congress shall also have power to regulate, control, acquire, construct, use, and operate aU means and lines of transportation carrying any commodity which is sold or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, carrying any interstate or foreign passengers, or transmitting power or intelligence across state lines; Congress shall also have power to grant licenses and corporate charters in all cases except where the business of such licensee or corporation is to be trans- acted wholly within the limits of a single state; and no state shall have power to grant to any person or corporation the right to do business of any kind beyond the limits of such state." With the enactment of the above laws, fortified by and resting upon the suggested Constitutional amend- ment, we would have in our midst "Equal Opportunity for All," not in theory, but in actual fact. Let all who so believe work for the accomplishment of these greatly- to-be-desired results. [60] Digitized by Microsoft® EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALT. Authoe's Note: — The Author would be glad, on re- quest, to furnish, free, copies of this booklet. Address Frederic E. Kip, "Kjrpsburg," Montclair, New Jersey. To the reader who believes (and we cannot conceive how anyone reading this article carefully can do otherwise) that it is impossible to obtain in the United States "Equal Opportunity for All" except by one set of Federal laws for all business activities and labor connected therewith, predetermined to flow or go in interstate commerce, we would respectfully state that it is not by hearing, seeing, or believing that results are accomplished, but by action ; and, furthermore, if that reader and believer would lend his co-operation, these highly desirable results, for the benefit of all humanity, would soon be an accomplished fact in our midst. There are many ways in which you can add your influence to accomplish the results desired. First — You can be a live missionary and talk to and convince as many of your friends as possible. Second — At election time, and as much before elec- tion as possible, and at the primaries, you can urge and demand that before being endorsed or nominated for election all State Governors, State Assemblymen, and State Senators, and aU United States Senators and United States Congressmen promise to approve, further, and vote for the carrying out of these simple plans for the reorganization of our governmental system, as set forth in the six propositions marked Laws 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 6, and in the suggested Constitutional amendment on pages 57, 58, and 59, which show the simple provisions designed to bring about and to vouchsafe "Equal Opportunity for All" and special privileges to none. [61] Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft® Digitized by Microsoft®