The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-10-20
A CoEREsPONDENT on OUR ARTICLE
OK TRUSTS.

We call attention TO an article which
ear,ears I'm another column signed zone
OF the people" This article is u response
TO ours of the 18th October, oil Trusts
TO properly appreciate the case, the
substance of our article of the 18th must
be rcstated here. We argued In that ar
ticie that our institutions encouraged
men 10 accumulate all the property they
could by fair dealing. and held out 10
them the promise that they shouid DE
completely protected i'm the possession
and enjoyment Of whatever they so ac-
oulred. We then said that cur INSTITUTIONS
equally held out this encouragement 10
individuals when working together In CO.
uperation, and that without regard TO
the number who co-operated or 10 the
amount of money and property that they
might accumulate This being so we
then argued that the popular prejudices
against those very SUCCESSFUL ana very
rick corporations whickrwe have named
'sTrusts." that receive no Dement'S from
the laws such as the Sugar Trust re-
ceives. must rest upon the fact 'hat
they are incorporated companies instead
OF mcrchantile partnership. and We ask
and nut limitations upon what coroo-
rations might do aud what they might
accumulate. We gave our own very ue-
cided opinion that such course would De
very unwise. This was the substance oil
our article TO which our correspondent
replies His reply amounts TO no more
than an effort 10 prove that those VINO
have heretofore managed the affairs Oh
the Standard oil Company. have outrage
ousIy abused their powers and privileges
and have been guilty Of many crimes IN
The conduct of that companys affairs.
But we inu.t ask in all candor If this
can be logically considered any reply 10
our articlcg Ii it Is, it must be upon the
theory that because :he managers OF one
corporation have grossly abused its priv
iIigcs aud powers. the managers or ali
corporations may DO the same, and there
fore, that there should be no corporations
nj all. We do not believe we could use
fully employ our time IN discussing this
proposit.on. Mankind has received too
much benefit from corporations TO lis
ten to any proposition that they shall be
discontinued Men will say these officers
should bc punished. but the corporate
principle must be preserved. The aues-
ton. and the only question. which VIII be
tolerated is shall limitations be put upon
tho field of action OF corporations. and
upon ths amounts which they may be
permitted TO accumulate. This Is the
question which our article of October
18Th intends to bring up for discussion,
bu, we do not understand our CORE
spondent's communication TO be addressed
70 that question. so that we do not see
that there is anything in il that calls for
any reply from us
II may be proper for us TO say, however,
that all our correspondent alleges against
the management of the Standard on
Company may be true for all that we
know No doubt, though the Standard
OIL Company has its side to the case. We
have never yet known OF a case which
aid not have two sides. But VIC know
nothing about the matter. This. how
ever, we do know. When the Standard
on Company began TO monopolize tho oil
business of this country. the oil which the
average citizen AYERS cost him about 80
cents q gallon, the same oil costs him
now about Is cents a gallon. The people.
therefore. do not seem TO have been very
greatly damaged by this monopoly.