The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1899-09-26
The Dlessenger.


practical sense and the general vague
ness provoke opposition. The New
York Tribune with its usual want of
candor declares it was full of practi-
cal sense and must nave shocked
Bryan. This is aid in behalf of the
second speech. 1t does not hurrah over
the first speech. Let any man of ordi-
ness read the speeches of Cochran and
then read Bryan's clear, vigorous, in
tensely practical speech and he will see
how silly the Tribune is in it's personal
al tagonism to the great westerner and
how stupidity laundering it is in it's
characterization of Cockran's wild
rhetorical blatherskite. Cochran has no
doubt Wy marked brilliancy of de-
clamation and ability of a certain
kind, but he is known not to be a man
of profound convictions and sincerity.
He is of that class Of men who long
ago fourished in England and whom
Macaulay with his u~nequalled clever
ness and force described at length as
@eTrimmers." III New York man
lives in the right place-in a city full
of political tricksters and weather
cocks. His speech at Chicago in a sup
posed antitrust gathering was indeed
in behalf Of trusts, and he ought not to
have had a seat in the conference. He
is the man however to be bold for the
wrong and to defend e~ntrenched power
that Expresses and curses. The able
Houston (Texas) Post says Of him that
with the rich vocabulary and the arts
of oratory at his command, simply
mystifed the issue and in consequence
left no one of his auditors the wiser for
his effort. The speech when read, as
reported by the Associated Press, i'm
presses one as weak because it was an
attempt to straddle a question that
must be handled in an entirely differ
ent way.
Trusts are either right or they are
wrong.
Mr.. Cochran says some are right and
some are wrong, only vaguely indica-
ting the line of demarcation by holding
that in the former category are trusts
not specially favored by government"
He can get his reward from the trusts
If he becomes needy or an applicant
for favors. If he would enlighten the
country which are legitimate and which
the illegitimate trusts; which are the
good and which are the bad trusts, he
might oblige the country at large and.
do a service to honest men in search OF
light and truth. But Bourke's wab-
bling way-his wiring in and out-will
not clear the atmosphere or illuminate
understandings. His evasions, his mys-
tifyings only darken wisdom and make
difficult proper, safe legislation. The
Post say this:
There is a distinction also between
trusts and monopolies which Mr.. Cock
-ran fails to make, branching off in his
address TO the subJect OF mun1cloal
Ownership, which, while it may con-
vcern monopoly, has little connection
with the trusts. All trusts are virtual
ly ~monopolies, or have monopoly In
view, but all ~monopolies are not trusts.
"A different treatment is, therefore,
necessary in these different cases. The
remedies against the trusts would not
affect many simple monopolies, and
vice versa"
All good and true citizens do not de-
sire to crush lawful and proper enter
prises. They do not wish to put curbs
upon business, energy and activities.
They wish to see business conducted
upon a broad, humane, just, fair prin-
ciple. They cannot favor a system
that brushes enterprises already opera
ting, and that puts up prices beyond
eason and right. A visit to the six
teen or more wholesale groceries in
Wilmington would "a tale unfold Of
advance in prices under the operations
of trusts Of whom they are compelled
to buy.
The Post makes farther this criticism
of the New York crotchety orator:
"He does not discuss the specific evils
of which complaint is made, and the
only remedy he proposes to the preml-
ses is one calculated to protect h pur-
chaser, or would-be investor, in cor
~poration stocks, rather than the con-
sumner of trust goods, the labor1ng
classes or the individuals who desire to
embark in Independent enterprises"
But it is some thing Of a waste Of
time to be considering the position Of
the New Yorker. He has attracted at
tention really beyond the merits of his
speeches., if he has helped trusts and
sought to confuse the popular mind.
His lack of conviction was the cause
of his scattering remarks" As the
Post says the of the speaker
was owing Ito the weakness of
the cause involved in any yelled
SSdefense of the trusts. And yet
there have been strong arguments
made in behalf of these combines-but
they were made by men with perfect
honesty of conviction and with cour-
age Of conviction"
Their is one point he presented that
is well met by the Atlanta Constitution
in it's second editorial on the loose
talker. Cochran said: I'm my judg-
ment there is but one test OF prosper-
ity, which is absolutely infalfible-that
- 49, 800 f u-oro Maid 70 labor