The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-10-15

"t1] IIon the DaSe and Sordid motives,
fear and selfish anxiety ruling their
minds, and not philanthropy and recti-
tude
DANGEROUS PRO-TRUsT ARGU-
NIENT
One of the most plausible and insinuat
ing pro-trust arguments and therefore
one OF the most dangerous, Is furnished
by Arthur J. Eddy, of Chicago, a corpo-
ration attorney. Entirely consistent with
the purpose of the article, 1t does not
bear the stamp of the Republican organ
1zadon, but is printed in Republican
newspapers ostensibly as matter of cur
rent interest and information. At the
outset the author waves aside politicians,
and states that he is addressing "stu-
dents Of economies and thoughtful citi-
zens,f but careful reading makes per-
fectly plain that he is addressing mem
bers of labor unions and that the whole
article has well designed political pur-
pose ~
The gist of Mr.. Eddys argument Is
that while trusts are attacked and re-
garded as Illegal, labor trusts, otherwise
unions which themselves have as their
chief object the raising of prices (wagesl,
and the maintenance of prices so raised
are legal. Mr.. Eddy indorses labor
unioSs, but more than once in the course
OIL his article he manages to indirectly
put the question to his readers of wheth-
er 1t is fair to deny to trusts the priyi-
lege of raising prices to the consumer in
oroer to cover the increase Of wages dc
manded by the unions Mr.. Eddy wishes
1t understood that trusts do not raise
prices to the consumer more than is
necessary to cover wage increase, and
that it Is only just to allow them to
do this. AS will be pointed out later,
this privilege might be conceded the
trusts without modifying in the slightest
the real trust question before the pub
lie First let us read Mr.. Eddy's con
illusions:
Combinations of capital and combina-
IONS OF labor have come to stay; they
character1zes modern Industrial and com
mercial progress; they are the inevitable
ana legitimate successors of more print
i've conditions of trade rivalry and de-
structon; they are part of the great
scheme of cooperation, which is. the prin-
clpal factor in social advancement: they
Drlng persons, localities, states and coun-
tries together; they are the foes of war
and the allies of peace, and at their best
they tend to make the dream of the
brotherhood of man a reality"
How us apples do swim" remark the
trusts to the labor unions. If the latter
are caught by this sort of sweet COM
radeship the trusts will be given another
four years in which to abuse their power
But the plea is extremely deceptive, for
it is not combination, per Sc, for legiti
mate purposes that makes the trust
question now under consideration.
The legality of labor unions can be
reasoned out by any man of ordinary
intelligence who is able to distinguish
the right Of the mass of the American
people to combine for mutual benefit
financial or other. Labor is a public in
stituuon. upon which the welfare of all
other institutions rest, and considerations
of public welfare demand that it's efforts
toward securing better conditions of life
be encouraged. No such reasoning scan
justify the existence of the trusts, which,
far from cooperating with labor, seek
to practice extortion on consumers who
are themselves laborers public insti-
tuition, distributing its benefits over all
~ INV =
the establishment and approval of a. pri-
vate institution seeking excessive finan-.
cial benefits for a few at the expense of
all. 1t is far from a profound legal effort
which tends to dissociate labor from the
people. as whole, and associate it with
commercial combines which arbitrarily
increase the cost of necessaries of life
to the people, not because legitimate
profit or any consideration Of wage scale
demand such action. but simply because
the power to crafty greed has been
placed in their hands by tariff law
No lawyer would waste his time making
such a plea as an economic proposition
and, despite the disclaimer of Mr.. Eddy,
the purpose back of his article must be
regarded as purely political.
So much for the alleged brotherhood
between the offensive trusts and the
working people. A moment ago refer
ence was made to the claim that trust
profits ought to be regulated by the
trusts. as to permit the granting of
wage demands from labor unions Is
this really worth serious attention? When
did trust ever make such an advance,
and no more than such an advance. and
for such a purpose? Is it not the rule, on
the contrary, that trusts first increase
| their prices and insure themselves exor-
! bitant profits, and then permit the labor
such advance? The anthracite coal trust,
| for instance raised the wholesale price
of its product 55 cents, and all the coun-
| try knows its employ labor union
are now striking for cents of that
| SO. The tin plate and other tariff trusts
have even worse records, as judged by
| the amount of their extordon. and the re-
luctance with which their employees were
| granted a pitiable share OF tie increase.
The question put with regard to the JUS
tlce of increasing the prices of trust
products to meet Increased wages y