Thus the recognition of the large corporation is equivalent to the perpetuation of its existing advantages.  It is not an explicit discrimination against their smaller competitors, but it amounts to such discrimination.  If the small competitor is to be allowed a chance of regaining his former economic importance, he must receive the active assistance of the government.  Its policy must become, not one of recognition, but one of recognition under conditions which would impair the efficiency of the large industrial organizations.  Mr. William J. Bryan’s policy of a Federal license granted only under certain rigid conditions as to size, is aimed precisely at the impairment of the efficiency of the “trusts,” and the consequent active discrimination in favor of the small competitor; but the Roosevelt-Taft programme allows the small competitor only such advantages as he is capable of earning for himself; and it must be admitted that these advantages are, particularly in certain dominant industries, not of a very encouraging nature.

Nevertheless, at the last general election the American people cast a decisively preponderant vote in favor of the Roosevelt-Taft programme; and in so doing they showed their customary common sense.  The huge corporations have contributed to American economic efficiency.  They constitute an important step in the direction of the better organization of industry and commerce.  They have not, except in certain exceptional cases, suppressed competition; but they have regulated it; and it should be the effort of all civilized societies to substitute cooeperative for competitive methods, wherever cooeperation can prove its efficiency.  Deliberately to undo this work of industrial and commercial organization would constitute a logical application of the principle of equal rights, but it would also constitute a step backward in the process of economic and social advance.  The process of industrial organization should be allowed to work itself out.  Whenever the smaller competitor of the large corporation is unable to keep his head above water with his own exertions, he should be allowed to drown.  That the smaller business man will entirely be displaced by the large corporation is wholly improbable.  There are certain industries and lines of trade in which he will be able to hold his own; but where he is not able to hold his own, there is no public interest promoted by any expensive attempt to save his life.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Law constitutes precisely such an attempt to save the life of the small competitor; and in case the Roosevelt-Taft policy of recognition tempered by regulation is to prevail, the first step to be taken is the repeal or the revision of that law.  As long as it remains on the statute books in its existing form, it constitutes an announcement that the national interest of the American people demands active discrimination in favor of the small industrial and commercial agent.  It denies the desirability of recognizing what has already been accomplished in the way of industrial and commercial organization; and according to prevalent interpretations, it makes the legal standing of all large industrial combinations insecure—­no matter how conducive to economic efficiency their business policy may be.