against the public welfare which the Government should use all its powers to suppress.  If, on the other hand, a corporation seeks profit solely by increasing its products through eliminating waste, improving its processes, utilizing its by-products, installing better machines, raising wages in the effort to secure more efficient help, introducing the principle of cooperation and mutual benefit, dealing fairly with labor unions, setting its face against the underpayment of women and the employment of children; in a word, treating the public fairly and its rivals fairly:  then such a corporation is behaving well.  It is an instrumentality of civilization operating to promote abundance by cheapening the cost of living so as to improve conditions everywhere throughout the whole community.  Does Mr. Wilson controvert either of these statements?  If so, let him answer directly.  It is a matter of capital importance to the country that his position in this respect be stated directly, not by indirect suggestion.

Much of Mr. Wilson’s article, although apparently aimed at the Progressive party, is both so rhetorical and so vague as to need no answer.  He does, however, specifically assert (among other things equally without warrant in fact) that the Progressive party says that it is “futile to undertake to prevent monopoly,” and only ventures to ask the trusts to be “kind” and “pitiful”!  It is a little difficult to answer a misrepresentation of the facts so radical—­not to say preposterous—­with the respect that one desires to use in speaking of or to the President of the United States.  I challenge President Wilson to point to one sentence of our platform or of my speeches which affords the faintest justification for these assertions.  Having made this statement in the course of an unprovoked attack on me, he cannot refuse to show that it is true.  I deem it necessary to emphasize here (but with perfect respect) that I am asking for a plain statement of fact, not for a display of rhetoric.  I ask him, as is my right under the circumstances, to quote the exact language which justifies him in attributing these views to us.  If he cannot do this, then a frank acknowledgment on his part is due to himself and to the people.  I quote from the Progressive platform:  “Behind the ostensible Government sits enthroned an invisible Government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.  To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day. . . .  This country belongs to the people.  Its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest.”  This assertion is explicit.  We say directly that “the people” are absolutely to control in any way they see fit, the “business” of the country.  I again challenge Mr. Wilson to quote any words of the platform that justify the statements he has made to the contrary.  If he cannot do it—­and of course he cannot do it, and he must know that he cannot do it—­surely he will not hesitate to say so frankly.