The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-09-16
Combinations Denounced by knisht
of Labor Secretary Hayes as the
Enemies of Society.
BALLOT URGED AS REMEDY
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE AMER.
ICAN ANTITRUST LEAGUE.
w. ID. FouIke Opposed to Permitting
Those Who Have Little at Stake to
Control Property OF others.

CHICAGO. Sept. Acknowledgment. Social
lists. advocates OF the single tax theory and
students Of political economy were heard
this morning at the federation conference
on trusts and combinations held here. A
majority Of the speakers spoke In vigorous
opposition to industrial. financial and trans
portation combinations. The problem in It's
relation TO the w~orkingmen was discussed
The crowd which greeted Lewis NJ Post.
the New York advocate Of single tax. was
the smallest Of the session so far. His ad-
dress was enthusiastically cheered, the APP
plause ceasing only when Thomas B. Nor
gan rose and spoke on 1.-The Trust from
the Socialist Point OF View" Morgan was
followed by Henry White. secretary OF the
United Garment Workers Of America
N. NJ Garland. billed to speak on IAN
Iron and Steel Workers View OF Combina-
tions." and z. Z. Clark, grand chief rail-
way conductor. on the programme for an
address, were not present when Chairman
Howe called their names. and John w.
Hayes. secretary Of the knights OF Labor.
was called. He said:
II maintain hat these great combination
are an assault on the inherent and consfi-
tutional rights of the citizens; that the real
and vital advantage to be gained is the des-
potic control over labor. Violence Is not
the only means Of making conquests and
enslaving the people and It can be proven
beyond any question that the methods Of
the trusts are the methods of the invader
and the ends to be accomplished by the in
stigators Of the trusts are exactly those
Intended to be accomplished by arms d.
rected by military genius. Taking this view
OF the trusts. which / hold is the correct
one. I assert boldly hat they are the en-
emies Of society and as such should be
destroyed as any common enemy. The finan-
cial end OF the question should not come
into the subject for consideration. as the lib
critics Of the people are far above the mere
suggestion Of money.
THE trust, being an aggressive combina-
ton for purely selfish objects. attacks the
individual and by overthrowing his mutual
rights seizes OF his field Of opportunity ana
production. Other combinations. seeing the
success of the first attempt. enter upon the
same campaign OF conquest. Soon the indi-
vidual is overwhelmed and every field Of
production is monopolized by a trust"
LABOR UNIONS NOT TRUSTS
Samuel Gompers, president Of the Amer
lean Federation of Labor. followed Secre-
tary Hayes. He said IN part: 1T has been
said that organized labor il a trust, ana
1 want to say in connection with this that
to our minds that is an absolute misnomer.
Organized labor throws open It's doors to
all who work for wages and asks them to
come in and share in the benefits. You an-
not break into a trust. We have seen the
enactment OF the Law known as the anti
5000 fo- "a 81. Ia ur E1.-v~, a a ft~ {U<Aw-
state-commerce law. supposed to be en-
acted for the benefit Of the people ana yet
the only practical use Of these laws has
been to steal away from Us the right OF
trial by jury and to imprison the workmen
for conspiracy. AS a matter of fact where
ever the workers are organized and have
maintained their organizations. their wages
are higher and hours lower and conditions
better In spite Of combinations Of capital.
I'm the midst OF greater concentration OF
wealth and the vast development OF indus
try IL behooves the workers TO more cease
lessly than ever devote their energies to
organized labor and counteract the effect
which their helpers and unprotected condi-
ton would otherwise LAY upon them"
Mr.. Gompers was loudly applauded- The
convention then took a recess until .
o'clock
John B. Clark, of Columbia University.
was the first speaker at the Afternoon ses-
sion He said in pars: what would the
total extinction of trusts mean? II would
mean security bought at the cost OF waste
full production. What would the full devel-
opment OF trusts unchecked by potential
competition mean? 1t would mean q per-
verted distribution. with extortionate profits
for a few and burdens for many. II would
mean a state from which many a man 70
whom the picture OF state socialism Il now
a terrifying specter would even begin %
turn to socialism itself as the more solerab,e
system. Are these the only alternatives ,
Far from II. A better one Is in part real
lied Trusts are largely checked by poteu:
tai competition and may be checked FAR
more efficiently than they now are. The TYNE
Of law-making that promises TO secure thi-
end Is as yet unknown 10 the practical
world The principle on which n rests is
an old and fundamental principle OF common
law. Monopolies are against public interest;
and trusts must not survive, II that means
retaining the monopolistic power. Courts
acting under common law have done not q
little in enforcing this principle: and statute,
may help them Statutes well enforced nay
greatly help them. What should the stafres
be? Here I shall encounter objection and
dissent. The evil power or a trust rests al
most entirely on its power 10 make discrim-
mating prices. IL can do many things tia,
are evil: but II could do almost none of them
IL II were forced TO treat all rs customers
alike. AT present a trust can make ruinous-
ly low prices IN one small area. where some
competitor Is operating. while sustaining A.
self by profit made In twenty other areas
where II has q full possession or the market.
II II were under the single necessity a
making one price for ell buyers Il voul6