The Alaska citizen., 1911-09-25

| lev individuals. they will be forced 1 ro operate for fhc benefit ot all ! men
 Nr Berger Y,s. sir l Nlr S,arIcy And Ihar will be the easy step from the government con ! rrol as advocated by Judge Gary to | Socialism as advocated by yourself? ?
 Mir Berger That will he very natural step.
 Mr. stanl,, And an inevitable one
 Mir Berger Nobody can regulate another mans business. l would hate Ito regulate your property The leg ! ulatYnH of other De ple.s property k | always dubious thing to undertake. | Tn, trust. however. is willing to part with some of it's rights of own l ship If have a right tO say how much you shall get for your horse, ] | have share in the horse. A long as | can decide IF how much you 1 may sell your house. have a share in that house. And as long aS l can fix a price for coat. l | practically share in the ownership of that coat. Now that the trust of i fers an opportunity of ownership 10 ! the government. the government ought te accept Complete ownership, l h .wcVcr. is the final solution.
 Mir stanley A understand you. there is Htrl- difference between the i taken. for instance. by the United
 States Steel corporation. in this.
 that competition k a bad thing?
 Alr Beiecr-It was not d bad thing
 in irs day lr big business it is l played out; it q os not exist. IL was q go q thing as long as economic l conditions required it. 1 Mir stanley You spoke in your ad- dress oI the evils of competition and the bad effects of it-- Mir Berger Yes. sir. Mir stanley And suppose that l these great industrial institutions, l like the United States Steel c.rpoia i tiou. for instance. believe in abolish l ing mpetitiOn and fixing the price | by agreement or by law. the only difference between the trusts and the i Socialists is that the trusts believe i iii having the government run their 1 business for the benefit of the per ] S''Il~ W il' '''N II tt'iiI anu NbN 'tlI'N' | in having them nun these great or garizat,ous for the benefit of all the De pie?
 Mr F rger - Yes, sir.
 The Chairman The time of the l gentleman from Wisconsin has eN- i pirod.
 MT Fowler | ask that his time be extended
 ] Mir Cannon would like 10 ask what are the views of the gentle man rom Kentucky (Mr. Stanley) as to government ownership?
 The Chairman-The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin CMr Der ger) has expired,
 MT Stanley-l ask permission to reply to the gentleman from Illinois, if l can hear him.
 | Mir. Payne Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes more 10 the gen i tIeman from Wisconsin tMr. BergerD 1 MT CannOn-l wish tD ask wheth- CT the gentl man from Kentucky is for government ownership? l Mir. Stanley The gentleman from l Kentucky is essentially an individ- ualst He differs as widely from 1 Judge Gary as from the gentleman ! from Wisconsin CMr BergerD. am not ! d Republican; am not Socialist; l am Democrat. tApplause on the 1 Democratic sideD And l believe in competition and the Independence i of the individual.
 ] Mir Fowler Mr. Chairman
 The Chairman-DOes the gentleman 1 from Wisconsin CMr. BcrgeD yield i to the gentleman from Illinois tMr. | FOwleD?
 Mir. Berger Yes; l yield to the 2 ntleman.
 Mir. Fowler - l understood the l gentleman 10 say. ill the course of ! his argument that the conditions | had grown 10 such an extent tha! l the capitalist of today thought more i of his wealth than he did of the | laborer or the family of the laborer?
 Mir Berger Yes; said the aver age capitalist.
 l MT F,wler-I was al a coal mine i in my district last summer wherein l there had been an explosion, and 1 a man was sent down to investigate the result. When he came back the supernt Cndent asked him, as the
 first question. Were there any
 mules killed?" Is that what you
 mean by sizing up this situation? | Mr. Hcrger - l did not know of
 that incident; but l could recite a good many incidents of a similar na- ture.
 MT. Jackson Will the gentleman
 yield?
 The Charman-D Does the gentle
 man from Wisconsin yield 10 the
 gentleman from Kansas?
 Mir Bergor-Yes, sir.
 Mr Jackson-The gentleman was ! discussing the trust question l would 1 like to ask the gentleman if it is
 not true that what he means, un-
 der our present industrial system,
 is that where man has used his
 property to produce a monopoly, un-
 der the common law and under our
 constitution that mans property is devoted to the public use and that | the government has a right, this
 congress has a right, to regulate
 those prices? And l will ask the
 gentleman further if our supreme
 court. in the cases of Mum against 1 Illinois, and the people against Budd, has not announced and confirmed
 that doctrine?
 Mir Berger-Mr Chairman, do
 not know all the decisions of the supreme court. l am glad l do not. UaughterD However. whether the supreme court has so decided or not, the trusts are the natural outcome of