me to see the problem in this light, acceptance
of industrial monopoly with its complex task of fixing by public
commission the prices on innumerable kinds and qualities of goods
seemed at least premature. Rather, the first step toward a solution
seemed to be the vigorous prevention of unfair practices, and the
next step a positive regularizing of "fair competition."[19] The
fundamental idea in this is the enforcement of a common market price
(plus freights) at any one time to all the customers of an enterprise.
By this plan potential competition would become actual, and small
enterprises that were efficient might compete successfully within
their own fields with large enterprises that maintained prices above
a true competitive level. Even general lowering of prices by a large
enterprise with evident purpose of killing off smaller competitors is
unfair competition under this conception. It was for years recognized
that the realization of this policy required legislation regarding
uniform prices and the creation of a commission for the administration
of the law.

Sec. 17. #The trust issues in 1912#. The campaign of 1912 presented in an
interesting manner the three policies above outlined. The
Republican party led by President Taft stood for the policy of
monopoly-prosecuted; its program was the vigorous enforcement of the
Sherman law. The Progressive party, led by Mr. Roosevelt, stood in the
main for the policy of "monopoly-accepted-and-regulated"; its program
called for minimizing prosecution and for developing a system of
regulation of trust-prices. The Democratic party, led by Mr. Wilson,
stood for the policy of competition-maintained-and-regulated, and the
problem was to find means to strengthen and regularize the forces of
competition.

In practice these programs doubtless would be less divergent than they
appear. All alike proposed the retention of the Sherman law. The
two proposals to go further were presented as mutually exclusive
alternatives, whereas they necessarily must supplement each other in
some degree. The Progressives did not expect all industries to become
monopolies, and the Democrats tacitly conceded to monopoly-accepted
the large field of transportation and local utilities it already had
occupied. But there was a real difference in the angle of approach and
a real difference in emphasis. The Democratic program (the somewhat
unclearly) showed greater distrust of monopoly and greater faith in
the p