Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1903-04-17
Destruction of Competition
Rendered Impossible Under
the Hubbard Bill
cuMm,Ns ON MERGER DECISION
He ls Greatly Interested In and Favors
Il stronsly-HeIieves the Tendency
Of the Trust Movement to Monopo.
lies Is a Bid For socislism-His
View. Confirmed.
Special to Times Republican.


than any one else in Iowa the progress
| or the big lawsuit in the United States
| court of appeals is Governor A. b. Cum
Minis OF Iowa, and the decision of the.
court OF appeals has caused him great
pleasure. Governor Cummins, In fact,
Hooks upon the decision in the merger
case as a yindication Of the position he
| took last year in regard to railroad con-
solicitations, which position drew down.
upon his head the wrath Of the corpora
ton element here and elsewhere. Gov
lerhor Cummins made determined
fight to prevent the merger gaining
foothold in Iowa under Iowa laws. 1t
was due to his vigilance that the Iowa
| laws were not so amended as to permit
| OF Just such mergers in this state. He
was deeply interested in the fight
started in Minnesota against the merger
and In every way he could he gave en-
couragement to the Minnesota people to
make the fight.
"The decision Of the court of appeals,
he stated. "is good law and good sense.
The court reflected the best public opin-
lion OF today in regard to the merger and
iconsolidation movement which mas
gained such prominence the past few
years. The American people do not
want these great enterprises placed IN
| the hands of a few men to the end that
lthey may destroy competition and crush
lout the life of smaller but equally im-
fportant enterprises. The American.
lpeople are opposed to monoplies, and.
monopoly is the very essence OF the
mergers. The only monopoly that is at
FAN tolerable is monopoly by the gov
ternmenf, If the railroad magnates per-
sist in their, attempt to monopolize the
business they will lead straight to So
cialism and government ownership OF
the railroads. I regard that as a ca
Ilasf1y from which we should shrink. !
fbslieye that SO far as 1t 10 possible to
do SO we should preserve individual
rights and maintain conditions under
which competition will thrive, for 1t Is
lin competition and in that alone that
we have the real great assurance of fair
prices for all things. Destroy compeu-
ton and we must rely upon that gov
ernment control Of business affairs that
virtually amounts to government own
ership The court of appeals in striking
a blow at this movement and declaring
lit to be contrary to public policy has
done great service to the country, II
lis a decision which believe will be up
held by the higher court and certainly
by public sentiment everywhere.
| '.As to whether or not this decision
will be.effective in putting a final stop
to the merger movement do not know.
I have no means Of knowing whether
or not the ingenuity of those who plan
for this monopoly has been exhausted.
There may be- other ways In which
they will accomplish their purposes.
Judging by the past would suppose
they would attempt to accomplish
practical consolidation in some other
way. Where the stock or majority
of it is owned absolutely by men whose
interests are Identical. l can see how
they might accomplish the practical
consolidation of competing lines by
agreements which would depend on the
personnel of the ownership or manage
ment; but after all such agreements
must be much less satisfactory than
a legalized form of the consolidation
such as that planned in the case of the
Northern Securities company. But
have no thought that this battle with
the merger promoters is at an end
because OF this decision. 1t must be
fought to a finish.
Here in Iowa we have had an ex-
ample of what can be done by these
promoters of mergers and creators of
monopoly. We fought thru this Dues
ton in the last legislature; and am
- 11nli inf no
merger as that planned by the North
ern Securities company would be pos
sibe in Iowa under the Iowa laws as
they are now. In fact our laws We're
never better than just now. There was
introduced into the legislature last
winter the Molsberry bill which was a
measure in the interest of mergers. 1t
was a bill to take off the limit of m
debtedness and permit railroad corpo-
rations to incur Indebtedness to any
extent without regard to capital stock
/ or the value of their property. That
would have made possible the first step
| in the direction of consolidation OF
competing lines | vetoed the Dill when
lit came to me, because believed 1t was
unconstitutional and because belleVed
| that the consultations contemplated
| were contrary to public policy ana
ought not to be allowed. The measure
was unconstitutional because it was
discriminating. 1t not only applied to
railroad corporations while no other
kind of corporation has any such lack
of limit, but 1t Disseminated as be-
tween certain kinds of railroad corpo-
rations. applying to some and not to
others. 1t was contrary to public pol
icy because it was preliminary to the
consolidation of competing lines.
Then there was the Hubbard bill,
which as at first introduced contem-
plated giving direct authority for the
purchase or consolidation of railroad
lines. We already had statute au-
thorizing this consolidation or pur-
chase of lines in adjoining states. The
bill was to extend this on to other
states. 1t was amended very mater
tally before 1t was passed, for insisted
lit ought not to become law IN the