Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1899-03-16
Anita Herald on Trusts.

The editor of the Anita Herald is
entirely too modest. After the Herald
had vehemently attacked trusts and
charged that the republican party was
responsible for their formation, We
asked it what remedy it would suggest
and, blushing with genuine modesty, it
refrains from suggesting a remedy or
proposing plan whereby we may be
saved from our impending ruin. We
appreciate its sense of propriety when
it says: I'm 1896 the republicans sue
ceeded in getting control of the reins
of government and it would be the
height of impertinence for the opposi-
ton to elaborate line of action for
them but the Herald braves up
enough to point to the democratic
platfrom of 1896 which says, "The abb
sorption of wealth by the few
and the formation of trusts and pools
require strict control by the federal
government"
1t is easy to make platform declara-
ton against something. The demo-
cratic party has been handy at making
declarations about what ought to be
done. There was time, however,
between 1889 and 1891 that the demo-
cratic party had full control of the
Legislative departments of this govern
ment and they didn't modest the trusts
in the least. We suggested this to our
Anita exchange, but it replied this was
mot germane to the contention" We
claim it is germane to the discussion to
show that the democratic party in at
lacking the trusts in its platforms is
not sincere, and is only trying to kick
up dust. The editor of the Herald
may be sincere in his opposition to
trusts, but when he pins his faith to
the declarations of the democratic party
he shows himself to be easily imposed
upon. It's history on that subject be-
lies its words. 1t is also a notorious
fact that several of the leading pro-
moters of trusts in the United States
are also manipulators of democratic
policies. For these and many ether
good and sufficient reasons we will
have to decline the Herald's kind in
vitation for us to identify ourselves
with the democratic party in it's OPP
position to trusts.
1t looks like the emocratic party,
beaten at every point in its discussion
of the silver question, was going to fall
back to this opposition to trusts and
corporations as it's principal line of
battle for next year.
We were honest in our request to
the Herald to suggest way to check
the growth of trusts. We did not
mean for it to quote the generalites of
a platform but to suggest specific
line of action. Can it suggest any
thing in which the remedy will not be
worse than the disease? A trust is
simply one step beyond corporation,
q corporation one step beyond part
nership, partnership one step beyond
private ownership of property. We
have right to honestly acquire prop
erty, we have right to enter a
partnership, we have right to buy
shares in corporation, and we have a
right to sell our corporation stock to
whom we please. We do not defend
trusts or mbinations of capital to
control the market, but we do ask how
are we going to attack them without
attacking the rights of property.
The idea that the republican party is
the promoter of trusts is mistake and
cannot be shown. 1t is true trusts are
increasing rapidly now, but their
growth is not because of republican
legislation. They are an outgrowth of
rapid commercial development. The
republican party is to some extent re-
sponsible for revival of business, and
if this has aided the formation of trusts,
they are responsible to that extent.