Audubon County journal. (Exira, Iowa) 1884-1993, 1912-10-17
Two Big ISSUES.
SAYS GOLFERS
The Tariff and the Proper Treat
Inent of Monopolies.
WON'T TIE TO ROOSEVELT
ACTIVELY Dlsasrees" With His Views
About Trusts and WASTES OF Com
petition" and Supports the candI-
dacy of Wilson and Marshall.

Roosevelt, plus George w. Perkins,
Elbridge H. Gary and the rest of the
steel trust-harvester trust magnates.
It's open opposition to the third term
ticket was indicated in the issue of
Sept. IA. In the issue of Sept. 81 it's
reasons for espousing the Democratic
cause are clear and forceful
The leading editorial, THE Wastes
of Competition" says:
More and more the campaign is
coming down to two pressing issues,
the tariff and the proper treatment of
monopolies. Golfers actively dis
agrees with the view of monopoly be-
ing urged by Messrs. Roosevelt. Per
kins and Gary.
They talk great deal about the
wastes of competition. The necessary
wastes OF competition are relatively
insignificant, and the wastes Of unfair
and destructive competition are wholly
| unnecessary. They will be largely
eliminated when COMPETITION is regu-
lated
"The La Follette-Lenroot and the
Stanley bills to perfect the Sherman
law and the Newlands- Cummins pro
posals for an interstate trade commits
sion are all directed in part to that
end. The remaining wastes of compe.
| tition may be likened to the wastes of
democracy. These are obvious, but we
know also that democracy has COM
pensations which render it more eff
Gent than absolutfsm. So it is in in
dustry. The margin between what
men naturally do and what they can
do is so great that the system which
urges men on to effort Is the best sys-
TEN.
The necessary wastes of monopoly,
on the other hand, are enormous Some
of these can, Of course, be eliminat Cd
by regulation. An efficient interstate
trade commission, acting under appro-
pirate legislation, could put an end to
much Of the oppression of which trusts
have been guilty 1t could prevent un-
Just discrimination. 1t could prevent
ruthless and unfair use of power; but
a government commission would be
poWerless to secure for the people the
low prices commonly attendantS upon
competition.
AS no means exist for determining
whether greater net earnings are due
to greater efficacy in management or
to excessive profits, large net earnings
would be followed by compulsory re-
ductton of prices which in turn would
create sense of injustice suffered
| paralyze Individual enterprise and pro-
duce unproGessive, slipshod manage
ment. The attempt to secure loao
prices through price faimg aoou1J
| prove as inlpotent as the statutes
tohich haze sought to protect the pub
Tic in railroad rates By limiting the
Dividends.
"The Interstate commerce commits
sion has been invoked as an argument
In favor of licensing monopoly That
commission has stopped many abuses;
1t has practically put an end to cor
rupt and corrupting discrimination in
rates; it has protected the shipper
from oppression and arrogance and in
Justice; 1t has prevented unreasonable
advances in rates; but it has secured
comparatively few notable reductions
IN rates, except those involved in
stopping discrimination between per
sons. places or articles. 1t has been
poaoerless to reduce operating costs,
and greater reductions in rates can
come only a0ith reductions in the cost
of producing transportation The in
justice and corruption attending the
earlier railroad period were extremely
serious. But We must not forget that
the saDeepi,,g reductions II, american
operating costs and rates belong to the
earlier period of competition among
railroads. In the ten years from 1889
to 1899, while competition among the
railroads was active, the freight rate
per ton per mile was gradually re-
duced from .941 to .724. The years
1899-1900 marked the great movement
for combination or Community of In.
terest' in the railroad world as we'll
as in the industrial world. The freight
rate per ton per mile began to rise In
each of the eleven succeeding years it
was higher than in 1899, and in 1910
1t was 1853.
The deadening effect Of monopoly
is illustrated by its arrest of inyen-
ton. The shoe machinery trust. form
ed in 1889, resulted in combining. d.
rectly and indirectly, more than 100
shoe machinery concerns. 1t acquired
substantially monopoly of all the es-
sential machinery used in bottoming
boots and shoes. as well as many 9th.
er machines. 1t believed itself unas-
sailaDle. and shoe manufacturers had
come to regard their subsection to the
trust as unavoidable. Nevertheless. in
1910 the trust found it's prestige sud
denly threatened and it's huge profits
imperiled. 1t was confronted with a
competitor so formidable that the
trust, in fragrant violation of law. paid
So.000.O00 to buy him out. Thomas g.
Plant had actually succeeded in devea-