The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1894-01-30

when the people came together, ami
mated by a common patriotism and
resolve IN earnest to destroy trusts"
or any other lik like evil, the remedy
will be found and the desired result
follow. Truth crushed to the earth
will rise again" and when the people
in their majesty determine to right a
wrong it will be righted. We may
paraphrase the old prophecy in Guy
Mannering and predict:
q Che dark will be light
And the wrong made right"
When the peoples ight, and judicial might,
Shall enforce the laws
Which patriots write.
WIZ 4. GUTHRIE.
Durham, N. O., Jan. 10, 194.
POSTSCRIPT.
Let me add a postscript to my article
on trusts" recently sent to you for
publication. I beg to assure you and
also Prof. D1wd that l did not have
even a suspicion at the time I wrote
my article that Prof. Dowd had writ
ten, or was writing, the article IN the
same subject published in your issue of
last Saturday. My first information
was the announcement in your paper.
1t was merely a coincidence that he
and l were thinking On the same sub
ject at or about the same time. You
will observe that my article is in no
sense a reply to his. My article seeks
to point out a remedy for an evil, upon
the assumption that there is an evil
that should be abolished. Prof. Dowd,
as l understand from his article, under
takes to combat such an assumption,
and contends that trusts r not evils,
at least not unmixed evils, for they
have wrought some good. He will not
take it unkindly, l know, if not in the
spirit of mere controversy, and not for
the mere sake of controversy, I should
submit a few observations in OppOsi
ton to his argument. I contend his
argument is illogical, and for the fol
lowing reasons: He admits from start
to finish Of his article (what he was
obliged to do,) that trusts are mOnOpO
lies. Now if that be true, then either
trusts are wrong in principle Or our
republican form of government, espe-
cially our own State government, is in
this particular built up on a wrong
foundation. Article 1, section 81 of
our State Constitution, which you and
Prof. Dowd and myself and every man
-, Moth Co~OI1oo -L0 hnn oua un%nI
in North Carolina has taken a solemn
oath to support, reads as follows, viz:
"Sec. 81. 'Perpetuities and mOnOpO
lics are contrary to the genius of q free
State, and ought not to be GLtOWed."
You will find the very same provisions,
in exactly the same words, in section
90 of the old Bill of Rights adopted by
our patriotic ancestors on December
18th, 1875. If you concede (what you
must concede) that trusts are monopo-
lies, then we have the whole argument
on this point in a nutshell and reduced
absolutely to the following logical
syllogism:
'All monopolies are contrary to the
genius of a free State, and ought not to
be allowed"
Trusts are monopolies.
Therefore trusts fought not to be
allowed.
Let some better logician than myself
pick a hole in the syllogism if he can
My contention is, that either trusts are
wrong or else our fundamental consti-
tutional law is wrong. And my solemn
conviction is that sooner or later one
or the other must go to the wall.
Prof. Dowd says: cit (the trust)
cannot be uprooted by statutes nor de-
stroyed by invective." As to ''invec-
tive" I may remark that in my opin-
ion and sentiment no good and right
Gus thing ought to be destroyed by
''lnvective, but whatever contravenes
the fundamental principles of govern
ment by and for the people in their
aggregate and representative capacity
is 10 the nature of treason against the
State, and must be put down or the
government is q failure. If l thought
Prof. Dowd's prophecy true, that
trusts cannot be uprooted by statutes
then I would indeed despair of repub-
lican form of government. But this is
an assumption on his part, and the
very assumption the contrary of which
I endeavoredt to chow inmy own article.
Igather from the scope and substance
of Prof. Dowd's article that his defence
of trusts rests largely upon the tact