The Black Hills union. [volume] (Rapid City, Pennington County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1889-1904, 1899-10-13
PINGREE ON TRUSTS,
HE CONDEMNS THEM AS AN UNMlTl-
GATED EVIL.

A Review OF the Chicago Trust Con-
ference and the D~efense Made by
the Eloquent Attorney of the
Trusts-Favors u Federal Law
The Chicago trust conference was of
great value because it separated the
chaff from the wheat. 1t did much to
clarity the subject. 1t was Of educa-
tional value.
But its principal benefit, to my mind,
was the revelation 1t gave US of the
position which the advocates of the
trust, or. rather, the trusts themselves,
would take.
Even an ordinary observer could not
fail to notice that the managers of
trusts and their agents, the newspa-
pers, had carefully planned their line
Of defense at the conference.
1t was equally apparent that they
recognized that the trust was on trial
and that all the arts of the plcadcr
were necessary to ave 1t from convic-
ton and Il verdict Of capital punish
ment.
So it was that ut the conference the
trust was defended, and skillfully, too.
by corporation lawyers, professors,
economists and theorists generally. On
the other hand, the antitrust side was
just as ably presented by practical
business men, farmers and leaders Of
labor interests.
While there were many and thought
FIJI nCnarS nrnSnntn1 tho nIlh1io nm
dOubtedly looked upon the addresses
Of w. Bourke Cochran and William j..
Bryan as the keynotes respectively Of
the indictment and the defense of the
rust.
This is so not only because Of the
fame Of both men as public men and
orators, but because they were given
sufficient time to develop a complete
indictment and defense. These two
orations were on entirely different
lines, although the two speakers agreed
on many things. Their views were
fundamentally opposed.
Mr.. Cochran considered the trust a
result of natural evolution of indus
trial conditions and forces that could
not be checked. Mr.. Bryan regarded
it as a result OF conditions which man
made and which a can change.
Mr.. Cochran placed the dollar above
the man. That is, such is the logical
outcome of his reasoning and his po-
sition. Mr.. Bryan placed the man
above the dollar. The former is the
commercial view and therefore selfish
and narrow. The latter Is the humani-
tartan view.
Mr.. Cochran is undoubtedly an ora
tor. The trusts could hardly ha
chosen a more effective champion. lie
had his audience s%pellbound and
charmed by the beauty Of his diction.
None could have condemned bad cor.
pOrate management in more scathing
terms than he did. He threw bou.
quets at the laboring men. This was
done with a purpose. 1t is evidently
the plan Of the trusts, first. to make
laboring men believe that their Owl
salvation is the fostering Of the trust
and, second, to !ntimidate them OF
modify their zeal, by claiming that Ia
Dor unions are, in fact, trusts and tina
warfare on trusts Is warfare on labor
unions. | predict that labor will no
be deceived.
Mr.. Cochran in his argument bull
a splendid structure. He divided trusts
into good and bad ones. He stated thai
abundant production fairly distributed
made prosperity. He held that will
good trusts there would be abundan'
production and fair distribution. There
fore trusts brought about prosperity
He claimed that trusts could not con
troll prices. He failed, however, to cite
any instance in which a trust had low
cred prices any more than enough tt
preserve the monopoly.
He insisted that all the trouble came
from restricted competitions; that mo
nopolies, if they produced the bes
article, were beneficial and that mo
nopoly was the very product Of free
competition. 1t should therefore b.
encouraged as long a. 1t continued t.
give us the best products. Again thu
commercial view.
Mr.. Cockran's political economy ma.
perhaps be unanswerable. The struc
ture Of his argument was unquestion
ably we'll built, but it will all fall int
shapeless ruins because it's foundation
are built on sand.
He fails to take into account tn
frailties Of man. Philosophy Is all RICH
in itself, but it should be kept in tn
schoolroom. Mans weaknesses, hi
passion and his greed always upset it
beautiful reasoning. Man Is not al
ways a reasoning animal. l wOul'
subscribe to everything Mr.. Cockral
and the professors and other theorist
said if man were an angel. But tn
trust is a INDUSTRIOUS commercial dc
formity. 1t o~verthrows all the laws 0
political economy by the crushing fore
of immense resources. 1t has no col
science. There are no good trusts
Human nature makes such a thin
impossible. The trust will not reduc
prices until it is forced. 1t cannot b
forced if it is a monopoly. 1t will nc
raise wages until it is compelled. !
cannot be compelled If it is the onl
employer.
These statements may violate tn
Jaws Of political economy to which Nj
Cochran and the professors appca
but human selfishness and greed hav
a d~isagreeable habit Of setting q
naught all the beautiful rules an
axioms of political economy.
The complaint is that the trust col
centrates wealth. Not being a philaI
thrODic institution II declines To al
tribute that wealth among the peopl'
1t destroys equality of opportunit.
Mr.. Bryan's answer to Mr.. Cockra
that it enthrones money and debase
mankind is complete and sufficient.
dealing with the trust, therefore, |,
IL: fauo raal aonditiarr LIT IL -.