The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-05-27
EFT WHERE'S THE ARGUMENT?

81 900. 900 900 now represented in monopo-
lsiic combinations" and asks what IS 10
be the attitude Of the two political con-
ventions in reference 10 the laws against
these huge combinations.
Does anybody suppose that the Repub-
ucan party would move against these
combinations Of its own making against
the Nail Trust, which compels home con-
samors to pay 81. Is per keg more Tor mans
than tho foreign buyer. against the steel
Rail Trust. which lcvios tribute OF %
per ton upon American railways; against
the Sugar Trust. which EFFORTS from the
pople bounty Of $3500o,o03 annually
,rzinst scores OF other Fat trusts. built up
and fosterod by Mckinley tariffs under
the specious plea Of good wages 10 the
working people. whom these combinations
ruthlcssy punder?
Where would the Republican party get
IT'S campaign funds II an embargo were
placed upon these big concerns. with
thcir casily-got millions and their re-
markable and substantial devotion TO Re
publicsn candidates and princples2
What would the Sugar Trust. for IN
sfance. think Of its friends at 81 Louis
II they should demand that II abaie T. 10
81 cents on every dollars worth II sugar.
that IL sells? Does anybody Oeiete that
I'm such an event Mr.. Mckinley could
sun preserve his "disniiici' shenc22 Tie
suggestion is prcposterous.
And as 10 the Democratic party 1t is
not clear that il will lave tine 10 ais
cuss any such unimporiant matters at
Chicago. A large section Of it has gone
crazy over The making II 5J-ce9t c'lars.
and the sane contingent OF IL IS likely
90 have all that it can do 10 keep the
whole concern from going headlong 10
destruction.
When the World says there are $1,000
100000 now represented in monopohstic
combinations. It does not confne its re-
marks 10 those combinations. Ike the
Sugar Trust and the Steel-Ran Trust,
that dopend upon the Protectionists' acts
Of Congress To furnish their life. Nor
does the writer We quote from refer 10
those only. Both include in their stric-
lures an great combinations OF capital,
whether those combinations exist by rea-
son Of some special privileges conferred
upon the individuals il them by law, or
whether they have grown up
through the enterprise, energy.
and thrift Of { he individuals
who have their means employed in them.
No one could be- more opposed 70 the
first sort than The Times is. They are
i'm dorogation Of common right. and exist
through the physical power Of all, which
can be rightfully exercised only for the
equal benefit OF all. being wrongfully APP
Piled so as to give some by force benefits
at The expense Of others.
Put readers Of The Times wen know
that it cannot sanction q condemnation
Of the second kind Of combination. The
Times can see no reason why nifty very
rich men are TO be prohibited from pool
ing their means and using them in CO.
operation If two very poor men are al
lowed to DO it, The Times tries to look
at all cases fairly and upon their merits.
Neither it nor any other person ever ac-
compishes anything by permitting cant
to usurp the place of reason. or allowing
itself or himself TO De led off into con-
domination Of new forms that are nothing
but an application OF its own most
cherished principles. Now The Times
insists that the principle OF joint action
and cooperation amongst men is the
active one that has done more for the
advance Of civilization aud the progress
of man than any other agency whatever
1t is utterly unable, then. 10 see why
when it encourages d half-dozen men Of
moderate means to pool their means and
work together as partners. it should rep
rehend the action Of one hundred very
rich men who combine their means and
work together as partners. II there is
virtue in the principle. there is the same
virtue in IL when acted on by many rich
men as when acted on 10y tsw Do,r
men. 1t is the principle that is valuable
and not the character Of those that resort
to it,
The only pretence Of an argument that
we have ever heard against such combi-
nations is that made by the New York
Journal of Commerce and IL would never
have been made BY that paper when David
NJ Stone was its editor. The argument
is that such combinations are unlawful
and harmful because they are arbitrary
in disposing Of their output. We do not
think that a suggestion Of this sort rises
20 the dignity u an argument What be-
longs to a man is his. and he may dispose
OF 1t as he pleases. lie may give it
away if he chooses, or h. may ask for it
price which will put it beyond the
reach of all purchasers. But 10 say
that when he prescribes conditions upon
which it is TO be sold he is abridging the
rights Of others IS TO deny him that pie
mum Gomiuian over his own which is
ir.tf. r.rr.l.f. o., Ga. fT., of rrot.rfr-