The Minneapolis journal., 1902-08-25
THE PRESIDENT ON COMBINES

In his Providence speech, Saturday, the
rpresident set forth his views on the trust
louestion in the most perspicuous and suB-
sestive manner Not that he advanced
any entirely new method Of dealing with
monopolistic trusts, but he examined the
whole subject in such a mastery way and
with such rational conservatism that his
sspeech ought to appeal to the common
sense of the American people. If the pres
ident has been charged with confusing
public thought on this subject heretofore.
the charge cannot lie against him now.
He pointed out very clearly the differ
ence between trust which may be called
noxious and one which is not only in
nocuous but a positive advantage to the
interests Of labor and Of the public gen.
orally. Stumpers like Bryan declaim
against corporate wealth in any form
,whatever, and their only remedy is to
'''abolish." President Roosevelt has him
self been a hard student of the subject
and the analysis he gave on Saturday is
much more complete than that
Fhe has heretofore presented. The
great difficulty with the sher-
| OOoo
not define what trust is. Since that
law was passed the trust has been
changed from league Of independent In
dustrial concerns to consolidation and
ownership. Of former separate concerns
under one heead and management. The
president favors legislation regulative Of
, corporate combines, with an unmistakable
definition of the nature and quality OF
the subject Of regulation. At present all
remedies proposed are only tentative. The
president. who once regarded publicity
. as the effective remedy, now comedies
that If that were attained further search
would have to be made to perfect regu-
1ation. The point emphasized by the
president Is, that the nation itself must
/ assume the effective control Of corporate
& combines by national legislation and If
!. that is found not constitutional, control
must be obtained by constitutional
/ amendment and every evil influence elm
mated. The president sees no complete
but beginning can be made of their So
luton, and is now made by the effort Of
b. the government to enforce the existing
I law against trusts, which law, unfortun-
s ately, does not give distinct definition
Of what trust Is. What is needed is for
I the federal supreme court to define pre-
I eisely the meaning Of monopoly Ell.
gagged In restraint Of trade"
So far as the position Of the two old
I parties on the subject is concerned the
republicans have the large advantage -ol
1ot oo%o %S,- IL
looking to the regulation of trusts They
are also on record as enforcing that Law
1 50 far as it can be enforced. The DEM
ocrats are on record as opposing success
fully the submission Of constitutional
Z amendment giving congress regulative
power as to trusts. They are on record as
& largely proposing to deal with the uues.
u ton by abolishing trusts. While engaged
.5 in such unreasonable action and denoun.
& cling all members Of corporate trusts a,
& scoundrels and swindlers and robbers, 1,
& has been shown that democrats are mem.
I, bers Of some Of the most gigantic of these
i combinations. The distinguished demo,
q cratic war-horse, Jones of Arkansas, fig.
8 uring Tor some years as chairman Of the
& democratic national committee, turns
3 up as a prominent member and promoter
+ Of the cylindrical cotton bale trust ant
democrats know that the active promoter
. and head OF the United States Shipbuild
= fng company capitalized at s45, ,ooo, 900, Il
s the late head OF Tammany, Mr.. Lewis
3 Nixon. Democrats, indeed, abound as pro
II nnoters of corporate trusts which ar,
II democratically pronounced criminal PEI
s. pc, which, Of course, they are not. It re-
b mains that, while both political parties
Il antagonize corporate trusts, the repub
81 lican party antagonizes only the trust
S which abuse the privileges conferred upol
them by the state. and proposes to- dea
ratislally in the regulation OF ell trusts