The daily morning journal and courier., 1906-08-31

A9IilIS Tn the VdflOuS SldISa' HI elleSe lstates where the people are ripe for change the local lines can be pur- chased or new lines be built at once While private ownership can continue in these states in which the people still prefer private ownership, Some states have been more careful than others to prevent the watering of stock, and in the acquiring of roads each state can act according to the situation which it has to meet
 As to the right of the governments federal and state to own and operate railroads there can be no doubt If we can spend several hndred millions on the Panama canal to lower trans-con- tinental rates, we can build railroad from New York to San Francisco to lower both rans-continental and local rates The United States mail is in- creasing so rapidly that we shall soon be able to pay the interest on the cost of trunk lines out of the money which we now pay to railroads for carrying i through mails.
 i If any of you question the propriety of my mentioning this subject, 1 beg to lremind you that the president couldnot have secured the passage of the rate bill had he not appealed to the fear of <, the more radical remedy of govern ment ownership, and nothing will SO restrain the railroad magnates from attempting to capture the interstate commerce commission as the same 1 fear. The high handed manner in which they have violated law and ig- nored authority, together with the cor Eruption discovered in high places, has done more to create sentiment in favor of public ownership than all the speeches and arguments of the oppo- nents of private ownership.
 I have referred to the railroad ques- ton as part of the trust question be- cause they are so interwoyen that it is difficult to consider one without the | othef,
 Just word more in regard to the trusts. Some defend them on the ground that they are an economic development and that they cannot be l prevented without great injury to our industrial system. This may be an- swered in two ways. First, trusts are a political development rather than an economic one and second the trust system cannot be permitted to continue even though 1t did result in net eco- homie gain. It is political because it rests upon the corporation and the cor dation. The trust, instead of being a natural development, Is form of le- galized larceny and can exist only so long as the law permits it to exist, That there is an economic advantage in production on a large scale may be admitted, but because a million yards of cloth can be produced in one factory at a lower price per yard than one hundred thousand yards can be pro- duced in the same factory it does not follow that cloth would be produced at a still lower price per yard if all the cloth consumed in the United States were produced in one factory under one management There is a point be- yond which the economic advantage of 1 large production ceases. The moment an industry approaches the position of monopoly 1t begins to lose economic efficiency, for a monopoly discourages invention, invites deterioration in quality and destroys most potent factor in production, vz individual ambition,
 But the political objections to the trust overcome any economic advan- tages which it can possibly have No economic advantage can justify an in- dustrial despotism or compensate a na- tion for the loss of independence among it's producers. Political liberty could not long endure under an indus trial system which permitted few powerful magnates to control the means of livelihood of the rest of the people.
 Landlordlsm the curse of Europe. Is an innocent institution In comparison with the trust, when the trust is car ried to it's logical conclusion. The man who argues that there Is an economic ladvantage in private monopoly is aid- ing socialism. The socialist, asserting the economic superiority of the mono poly, insists that its benefits shall ac- lcrue to the whole people, and his con- I clusion cannot be denied If the superb ority of monopoly is admitted. The democratic party, if I understand its position, denies the economic as well as the political advantage of private mo- nopoly and promises to oppose it wher- ever it manifests itself. It offers as an alternative, competition where compe-
 tition is possible, and public monopoly where circumstances are such as to prevent competition.
 Socialism presents consistent theo- ", but a theory which, in my iudg- ment, does not take human nature into
 account Its strength is in its attack upon evils the existence of which is confessed It's weakness is that if would substitute new disease-if not a worse one-fOr the disease from
 which we suffer. The socialist is hon.
 est in the belief that he has found a. remedy for human ills and he must be answered with argument not with abuse. The best way to oppose social Iism is to remedy the abuses which ihave grown up under individualism
 but which are not necessary part of indfvidualism, and the sooner the rem edy is applied the better. As I was
 leaving home I saw reason for opposing the socialist doctrine that the govern lment should own and operate all the means of production and transporta- ton; my observations during the past year have strengthened my convictions or, that snhiect Rerause ar,, ,,,,.;r,,