John Harrison Wilson, The life of Charles Henry Dana

Considered in connection with the subsequent growth of corporate power, as exemplified by the life-insurance companies and the great railroad combinations of the present day, and by the radical measures resorted to by the national government to limit and control such combinations, this statement, made over a quarter of a century ago, may well be regarded as prophetic.

Although Dana always called himself a Democrat, he doubtless used the word in a sociological rather than a political sense. He was habitually opposed to any action on the part of the national government that could be properly left to the State governments, and it was mainly for this reason that he opposed, from the date of their first mention, every bill presented to the national Congress for the prevention of food adulterations and the regulation of interstate commerce. He strenuously contended that the clause of the Constitution which authorized the Congress to regulate commerce between the States had no such meaning as was given to it in the interstate commerce act, and that all such acts were “antagonistic to Democratic principles” and a “step in the direction of centralization and paternal government.” He believed in rigid economy in the national expenditures, and therefore sympathized deeply with Holman, of Indiana, who began to attract public attention in 1882 for the frequency with which he objected to, and the persistency with which he scrutinized, the appropriation bills of the House. From that date, till he disappeared from public life, the Sun always mentioned the Great Objector with respect, and did all it could to encourage him in his good work. It even went to the extent of suggesting that his nomination and election to the presidency would be a good thing for the country. Holman was a plain man, but an earnest and sagacious one, and in commending his example and virtues it is evident that Dana meant to indicate that he regarded