The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-03-18
Washington Post.

Out of the numberless remedies which
ars proposed as means of dealing with
the trust problem, it is evident that one
plain and simple duty lies before con-
gress. An examination Of the subject
shows that the real difficulty Of the Ques-
ton is not so much in the choice of
remedies, but in the. power to apply any
remedy. { This arises out of the con-
stitutional limitations placed upon con-
gress and the states, respectively, con-
gress not having the power to deal ef-
fectively with the subject. inside the
states, while the states lack the power
to deal effectively with the subject out
side of their own borders. Already there
have been many attempts at legislation,
federal and state, but none of the
statutes has justified the hopes OF ad-
vocates In bringing an end to the evil
against which they are directed. And if
these failures are examined, 1t will be
found that while the several remedies
are beneficial in themselves, yet they all
fail through the primary defect and ade-
quate power is lacking to give them COM
plete and wide-reaching effect through
out the country. >
Popular Prejudices.
This power to deal with the subject
should be granted, without reference to
the ultimate remedies to be adopted, and
1t Is even unnecessary to consider in adj
vance just how far the so-called trusts
may, or may not, be an evil. Strictly
speaking, I am willing to admit that at
present there is debatable ground be-
tween those who oppose trusts and those
who defend them on the ground that they
increase production and decrease the cost
of production. These economic phases
are not we'll understood But, in the
meantime, the popular mind is greatly
prejudiced; much hostility is aroused
among the people against large accu-
mutations of wealth. Doubtless these ac-
cumulations have tendency to excite
avarice; wealth is aristocratic, dicta-
torial, arrogant, and puts it's possessor
out Of touch with the people. This feel
ing between wealth and poverty is rap
idly becoming intensified and the pos
SCISSORS of the wealth of the country
realize that they are not resting on bed
of roses.
The effect of these combinations of
wealth. as it seems to me, is not only to-
ward building up social aristocracy, but
it also serves to limit production and to
eliminate competition, thus reducing the
power of Individual effort. This destruc-
ton of individuality is directly opposed
to our theory of government, in the end
making a few masters and many slaves.
It is nothing new for law and society to
array itself against the creation Of mo-
nopoly, for it is a natural instinct ,of So
ciety at large to protect itself against
such combinations. So 1t should be I'M
derstood that when criticism Is advanced
against combinations and. monopolies it
is simply the reiteration Of q principle
which the law has always recognized and
approved. - <.a ~,
Some Trust Evils. y y
Applied to our own conditions, these
combinations of the pure monopoly type
have eliminated competition, have DOM
mated the market by fixing the price of
raw material, have reduced the: number
of employees, have fixed the price of the
finished product, knowing the people must
pay their price or go without it; they
make THE laboring element of the coun7
try as subservient as the slave to the
master. No matter how great the ne
cessities of the man of labor, he gets
work when the corporation says ready,
on terms fixed by the corporation 1t is
useless for amy set Of men to start an
opposition business, for the great COM
b1nations can depress the price Of the
product and in a short time drive the
opponent into bankruptcy.
1t is necessary, of course, to make a
distinction between the combination
which is clearly in restraint of trade, a
pure monopoly, and, the legitimate COM
bination of capital in large business en-
terprises. Undoubtedly. it is necessary
in order to carry on some Of the great