The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1902-11-27
SMASH THE TRUSTS
Will Roosevelt do 1t, Asks Mr.. De Hart
How the Steel Trust Kills oG
Competitors

Editor Independent: I quote press
dispatch:
Cleveland, Nov. THE reduction
in the price of steel tubes, amount
ing to about SIS ton, which went in
to effect within the past week, is said
by steel men to mark the opening OF
an aggressive warfare by the steel
trust against the independent manufac-
turers of tube steel.
"The trust has sought to buy up
these outside mills, but the owners
would not SELL Now it Is said to be
t-e purpose to force them out of bus
mess by cutting the price so low they
cannot meet it. When their exter-
mination has been accomplished it is
understood the trust will go ahead
with the construction of the two big
tube plants it is to build at Duquesne,
Pa. and Lorain, o."
Theodore Roosevelt should make
note of the above. | take it from tbs,
New York Times of November 8, four
days after election. Six months ago
the Times, apparently was ignorant of
trusts, but now it can speak of
steel trust" as if there were no doubt
of it's existence and that this was one
of many others.
If it is true, as charged, that the
United States Steel combination is
really reducing the price of it's steel
tubes for the purpose of forcing the
Independent manufacturers of tube
steel" out of existence, by cutting the
| price SO low that they cannot meet it,
then it is time for the president to
take notice of the fact and apply the
Sherman antitrust law.
a monopoly shows its teeth in two
ways: First. by cutting prices so low
that competitor cannot meet them;
second, by elevating prices against
consumers. In the one case, the OBJ
iect is to kill off competition and
thereby increase the power of mo-
nopoly. In the other case, the object
Is to make money by charging exorbi-
tant prices to the consumers.
Whenever the president sees, or
ought to see, that prices are lowered
unreasonably, that is, below the cost
of production, then he sees, or ought
| to see, the evidence of a monopoly;
| and he ought to apply the Sherman
law. Again if he sees that prices are
raised unreasonably, that is, far above
| the cost Of production, then he can
see the evidence again of monopoly.
In the latter case, the monster is at
war with the general public of consum-
ers; wh.4s, in the former case, the trust
is destroying competitor, in order to
get ready to make war upon the gen.
eral public again.
| 1t is as much the duty of the presi-
dent to prevent trust from destroy
ing competitor as it is to prevent it
from eating out the substance of the
people by charging exorbitant prices
II the president will act when prices
are reduced unreasonably, he will NOT
have to act when prices are raised
unreasonably against the public, be-
cause prices will never be raised
against consumers if the trust is pun
! he'd promptly for lowering them
against competitors.
| The Sherman law reads:
Sec. 2. Every person who shall
monopolize, or attempt to monopolize.
or combine or cOnspire with any other
person or persons, to monopolize any
part of the trade or commerce among
| the several states, or with foreign ma
| tiOns, shall be guilty of a misdemean-
or, and, on conviction thereof, shall be
punished by fine not exceeding $4,000.
or by Imprisonment not exceeding one
year, or by both said punishments, in
the discretion of the court"
What Is better evidence of an "at-
tempt" to monopolize than the lower.
ing of the price of a commodity un-
reasonably against competitors? Take
tie great billion dollar steel trust. for
instance. If we find it reducing the
price of steel tubes SIS ton, what more
evidence do we want that it is done for
the purpose of destroying a competi
tor, especially when independent man
ufacturers of tube steel are willing to
come forward and swear that they can
not be produced at so low price and
pay reasonable wages and reasonable
dividends on the capital invested? In
the case of the independent manufac-
| turarc of tuhn stea1o ic amman tbot III n