In both instances regulation in the democratic interest is as far as possible from meaning the annihilation of individual liberty; but in both instances individual liberty should be subjected to conditions which will continue to keep it efficient and generally serviceable.

Individual economic power is not any more dangerous than individual political power--provided it is not held too absolutely and for too long a time.
But in both cases the interest of the community as a whole should be dominant; and the interest of the whole community demands a considerable concentration of economic power and responsibility, but only for the ultimate purpose of its more efficient exercise and the better distribution of its fruits.
That certain existing American fortunes have in their making been of the utmost benefit to the whole economic organism is to my mind unquestionably the fact.

Men like Mr.J.Pierpont Morgan, Mr.Andrew Carnegie, Mr.James J.Hill, and Mr.Edward Harriman have in the course of their business careers contributed enormously to American economic efficiency.

They have been overpaid for their services, but that is irrelevant to the question immediately under consideration.

It is sufficient that their economic power has been just as much earned by substantial service as was the political power of a man like Andrew Jackson; and if our country is to continue its prosperous economic career, it must retain an economic organization which will offer to men of this stamp the opportunity and the inducement to earn distinction.
The rule which has already been applied to the case of political power applies, also, to economic power.