Hutchinson gazette., 1901-11-28


OF Northwestern university, made q de-
parture from recent practice In Yale by
delivering an inaugural address on az"
sumIng 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
aggregatlons may result in 4 saving OF
the wastes OF competition and that 80
far as they do they arc beneficial. But
he pointed out what he regarded as
countervalling evils OF great magni-
tude among which he mentioned stock
watering, high prices to consumers,
low pricos to producers OF materials
low wages to employees "and, above oil,
powerful II not corrupting 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-
tlon of new ones lie states that twen-
ty-seven states and territories have
passed such statutes, and that they
have had very little practical effect
It does not appear from the report
given Of his address that Prof. Rogers
was explicit In prescribing q remedy
for the evils he described. II Is mere
ly stated in the most general terms
that he set forth "the need OF restrain
ing corporations by every constitu-
tlonal limitation and the need Of pre-
venting corrupt influence by corpora
tIons on legislation and on industrial
life"
In tho absence OF anything more ex-
plclt than this the admitted fact that
congress and so many states and terri
tories have leglslated in vain does not
hold out much hope that they will leg
islato successfully hereafter In the d.
rection indicated It cannot be pre-
tended that In Georgia, Texas, Mis-
souri,, Kansas and other states leglsla-
tion has been dictated by corporations
or their attorneys. The antitrust peo-
ple have had things their own way and
exercised all their ingenuity in franz
ing antitrust legislation. Their ad-
mitted failure suggests suspicion that
they have been working on wrong
lines. II is the national legislature
that must take the initiative govern
ment ownership step
Perhaps upon mature consideration
Prof Rogers may conclude, II he has
not already done 80, that attempts by
statutory prohibitions and penalties
and hlndrances to prevent the massing
OF capital in great combinations are
neither practicable nor necessary, lie
may conclude that the only thing in
the way Of encouragement or prohibit
tIon which Is really needed Is cessa-
tion Of encouragement.
Our tariff laws hold out the strong.
est possible inducement to the organi-
sation Of great monopoly combines,
They naturally suggest the combine to
the benehciaries of the various protec-
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
society.