The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1894-01-25
POST SCRIPT.

Let me add postscript to my. art
Icle on trusts" recently sent to you
for publication. | beg to assure You
and also Prof. Dowd that | did not
have even a suspicion at the time |
wrote my article that Prof. Dowd
had written, or was writing, the art
icle on the same subject published
III your issue of last Sunday. Ny
first information was the announce
ment in your paper. 1t was merely
colncident that he and | were
thinking on the same subject at or
about the same time. You will OBJ
serve that my Article IS in no sense
reply to his. My article seeks to
point out remedy for an evil, upon
the assumption that there is an evil
that should be abolished. Prof.
DoWd, as | understand from his art
lcle, undertakes to combat such an
assumption, and contends that trusts
are not evils, at least not unmixed
evils, for they have wrought some
good. He will not take it unk1ndly.
| know, if not III the spirit Of mere
controversy and not for the mere
sake Of controversy, | should submit
a few observations in opposition to
his argument. | contend his argu-
ment Is illogical, and for the follow
ing reasons: He admits from start
to finish of his article (what he was
obliged to dO), that trusts are monop
olles. Now if that he true. the o
either trusts are wrong in principle
or cur republican form Of govern
ment, especially our own State gov
eminent, Is in this particular built
up on wrong foundation. Article
|, section 81, of our State constltu-
ton, which you and Prof. Dowd and
and myself and every man in North
Carolina who has ever voted in North
Carolina has taken a solemn oath to
support, reads as follows, viz:
Sec. 81. Perpetuities and mo
nopolles are contrary to the genius
Of free State, and ought not to be
allowed" You will find the very
same provisions, in exactly the same
words, i'll section % of the old Bill Of
Rights adopted by our patriotic an
cestors on December 18th, 1776. If.
you concede what you must con
cede) that trusts are monOpolies, then
We have the whole argument on this
point in nutshell and reduced alb
solutely to the following logical syl-
logism;
"All monOpolies are contrary to
the genius Of free State, and ought
not to be allowed
Trusts are monopolies.
Therefore trusts Fought not TO be
allowed.'
Let some better logician than nv
self pick . hole in the syllogism if he
can. My contention is, that either
trusts are wrong or else our fuuda-
mental constitutional law is wrong.
And my solemn conviction is that
sooner or later one or the other must
GO to the wall.
Prof. Dowd says: at (the trusts
can not be uprooted by statutes nor
destroyed by invective." As to I'm
vectlve," | may remark that in nv
opinion and sentiment no good and
righteous thing ought to be DESTROY
ed oy ''inyective," but whatever con
travenes the fundamental principles
of government by and for the people
IN their aggregate and representa-
tive capacity is in the nature of trea-
son against the state, end must be
put down or the government is fail
ure, If |. thought Prof. Dowd's
prophecy true, that trusts "eannot
be uprooted by statutes,n then |
would indeed despair of republican
form Of government. But this is an
assumption on his part, and the very
assumption the contrary of which /
endeavored to show in my own arti-
Gle.
I gather from the scope and sub