1914] on Some Aspects of the American Democracy 217 



does not serve my present purpose to discuss the industrial uain and 

 loss involved in these dissolutions, nor the success nor the present 

 limitations of the anti-trust law. The law is generally yet regarded 

 as incomplete, and there is a wide difference of opinion about the 

 remits of its enforcement. But my point is that these trusts did, 

 a(^cording to the finding of the Supreme Court, abridge the fair 

 opportunities of their competitots. Tliey were found by the Court 

 to have lessened commercial liberty and individual freedom of acti(»n. 

 And, if 1 read American opinion arighc, this was the real reason of 

 tlieir undoing. Of course, this main question became involved with 

 m:my other questions. The trusts themselves asserted that they had 

 done a public benefit by reducing the cost of their products to the 

 consumers — in some cases with truth ; that they had developed 

 valuable new products from what had before been wasted — in some 

 cases with truth. They every one had brought public Ijenefits <jf 

 some sort. They asserted, too. that they had been the victims oi' 

 sheer envy ; for success, especially financial success, always produces 

 envy. All this and much more is true. Yet the main matter is that 

 these great companies, in spite of all the benefits they conferred, were 

 thought to have lessened the fair opportunity of competitors, and 

 this was what the law was designed to prevent. The unchanging 

 spirit of the American democracy will not brook this fundamental 

 sin against its main dogma, whatever the incidental l)enefits may be 

 - or even a supposed sin against it. The door of commercial oppor- 

 tunity must be left open. However crudely the anti-trust law 

 expresses this conviction and this resolution, it does express it And 

 the determination to keep the door of opportunity open, at any cost, 

 accounts for this wliole vast anti-trust agitation. 



A similar example of the working of this same principle is the 

 vast volume of railway regnlation. Long before the anti-trust 

 agitation, ihere arose a popular outcry against the railways, an outcry 

 that brought much legislation to regulate them, and that in some 

 •cases brought much embarrassment. The explanation is, the popular 

 wrath that was stirred up l)y the practice of the railways in carrying 

 goods more cheaply for some persons and ^ome companies and some 

 commtmities than for their competitors — in a word, the practice of 

 Hbridging somebody's fair opportunity for the benefit of somebody 

 else. Great corporations, whc'i they commit this cardinal sin. are 

 likely to bring punishment not on themselves only, but on many 

 innocenr, persons. But our democracy has to deal with large terri- 

 tories, great numbers of people, and far-reaching organizations. It 

 cannot discriminate to make its justice exact. But it does keep to 

 certain clearly-felt aims, and it does not pretend to delicacy in all its 

 dealings. It asserts some large principle in an unforgettable way. 

 and its assertion at times reminds one of a volcano, or of a tornado. 

 It may be called the great social force of nature. The main matter 

 is that the power of irs protest shall be felt— not who may be 



