Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1901-11-29
ROGERS ON TRUSTS.
SEES THEIR EVILS BUT NAMES NO
REMEDY.
He Probably Knows That Govern ment
Ownership Is the Principal Remedy,
But Being q Yale Professor, He Dares
Not Say 30.

Henry Wade Rogers, lately president
of Northwestern university, made de-
parture from recent practice in Yale by
delivering an inaugural address on as
Stunning his chair in the law school In
that institution.
A dispatch from New Haven states
that Prof. Rogers surprised his audi
ence, consisting of leading members of
the Connecticut bar, including most OF
the conspicuous corporation lawyers
and members Of the supreme court. by
insisting upon the necessity of curbing
the power Of corporations, especially
the corporations commonly known as
trusts.
The professor admitted that these
aggregations may result In saving or
the wastes of competition and that so
far as they do they are beneficial. But
he pointed out what he regarded as
countervailing evils Of great magni-
tude, among which he mentioned stock
watering, high prices to consumers,
low prices to producers Of materials,
low wages to employees land, above all,
powerful if not cUrrupting influence
which may be exerted over political
organizations and over every depart
ment of government, the executive, the
legislative and the judicial"
Prof. Rogers admits that thus far
statutes have had little effect to de-
stroy or control existing industrial
combinations or to prevent the forma-
tion Of new ones. He states that twen-
ty-seven states and territories have
passed such statutes, and that they
have had very little practical effect.
1t does not appear from the report
given of his address that Prof. Rogers
was explicit in prescribing a remedy
for the evils he described. 1t is mere
ly stated in the most general terms
that he set forth 'the need of restrain
ing corporations by every constitu-
tional limitation and the need of pre-
venting corrupt influence by corpora
lions on legislation and on industrial
life"
In the absence of anything more ex-
plicit than this the admitted fact that
congress and so many states and terri
tories have legislated In vain does not
hold out much hope that they will leg
islate successfully hereafter in the d.
rection indicated. 1t cannot be pre-
tended that in Georgia, Texas, Mis-
souri,, Kansas and other states legisla
ton has been dictated by corporations
or their attorneys. The antitrust peo-
pie have had things their own way and
exercised all their ingenuity in franz
ing antitrust legislation. Their adj
mitted failure suggests suspicion that
they have been working on wrong
lines. 1t is the national legislature
that must take the initiative govern
ment ownership step.
Perhaps upon mature consideration
Prof. Rogers may conclude. If he has
not already done so, that attempts by
statutory prohibitions and penalties
and hindrances to prevent the massing
of capital in great combinations are
neither practicable nor necessary. He
may conclude that the only thing in
the way of Encouragement or prohibit
ton which is really needed Is q cessa-
ton of encouragement.
Our tariff laws hold out the strong
est possible inducement to the organi-
cation Of great monopoly combines.
They naturally suggest the combine to
the beneficiaries of the various prorec-
tive schedules as soon as they begin
to compete against one another and
cut prices from the limit assigned by
the duties which shut out foreign COM
petition.
Remove the duties which enable
home producers to maintain prices
from 20 to 100 per cent or more above
the level which would result from
open, worldwide competition, and you
remove the motive to the formation Of
most combines by taking away nearly |
all of the profit to be derived from
their formation. Next to complete |
government ownership Of the princi-
pal monopolies a reduction Of the tariff |
is the best remedy.
BY repeating tariff and other laws |
under which trusts are able to accumu
late millions we can impose much re-
straint upon those organizations that
is much needed for the protection of |