The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1912-10-12
TWO Big ISSUES, :
SAYS GOLFERS
ahe Tariff and the Proper Treat
ment of MonopoIieS..
WON'T TIE TO ROOSEVELT
actively Disasrees" With Ills Views
About Trusts and WASTES OF Com.
petition and Supports the candi-
dacy Of Wilson and Marshall,


Roosevelt plus George w. Perkin
= Elbridge II Gary and the rest of tl
Z steel trustharyester trust magnates.
It's open opposition to the third teri
I ticket was indicated in the issue {
Sept IA. In the issue of Sept. 21 Ii
+ reasons for espousing the Democrat
cause are clear and forceful.
d The leading editorial. The Waste
5 Of Competition. says:
"More and more the campaign /
coming down to two pressing issues
the tariff and the proper treatment @
monopolies. Golfers actively dis
agrees with the view of monopoly be
ing urged by Messrs Roosevelt. PEI
kins and Gary.
"They talk great deal about IN,
wastes of competition. The necessar-
wastes of competition are relatively
Insignificant and the wastes of unfair
and destructive competition are who'll
unnecessary. They will be Iargel,
eliminated when competition, is regu
lated.
The La FolletteLenroot and the
Stanley bills to perfect the Sherman
law and tho Newands.C Cumanins pro
Z posais 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 1t more Ell.
cient than ahsolutism So it is in in
/ oustry' 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.
Ihe necessary wastes of monopoly.
on the other hand, are enormous. Some
OF these can, OF course, be eliminated
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 It could prevent
ruthless and unfair use OF power; but
a government commission would be
poWerless to secure for the people the
low prices commonly attendant 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-
duction Of prices, which in turn would
create q sense of injustice suffered. |
paralyze ndividualienterpris and pro. |
duce unprogressiye, slipshod manage
ment. The attempt 10 secure Iotc |
prices through price firing mouId
prone as iDipotent as the statutes
sohich hare sought to protect the pub
ho IN railroad rates bv limiting the
diuidends
The interstate commerce commits
sion has been invoked as an argument
IN favor Of licensing monopoly. That
has stopped many abuses;
t has practically put an end to cor
'upt and corrupting discrimination in
'ates; 1t has protected the shipper
rom oppression and arrogance and in
ustice; it nas prevented unreasonable |
rdDdHces in rates; but it has secured
few notable reductions
n rates, except those involved In
topping discrimination between per-
ons, places or articles II has been
'o0erleSs to reduce operating costs.
nd greater reductions in rates can
ONE oHlY l0iH reductions IN the cost
T producing transportation The in
1stice and corruption attending the
arlier railroad period were extremely
arious. But we must not forget that
he Slcecping reductions in American
perdting costs and rates belong TO the
1Ylier period Of competition dmonq
lilroads IN the ten years from 1889
} 1899, while competition among the
iilroads was active, the freight rate
er ton per mile was gradually re-
lced from .941 to 724 The years
$4,000 marked the great movement
II combination or community of in ss
rest in the railroad world as well wv
in the Industrial world. The fretght a
,tc per zen per mile began to rise. III &
ch Of the eleven succeeding years it
as higher than in 1899, and in 1910 4
was 753.
"The deadening effect Of monopoly 4
Illustrated by it's arrest Of inyen- u
IN The shoe machinery trust, form
in 1899, resulted in combining. di-
city and indirectly, more than 100
oe machinery concerns. 1t acquired
a monopoly of all the es.
atial machinery used in bottoming i
cts and shoes, as well as many 9TH
machines. It believed itself unas-
lable. and shoe manufacturers had
me 10 regard their subsection to the q
st as unavoidable Nevertheless, in
20 the trust found its prestige sud
lly threatened and its huge profits n
pefiled 1t was confronted with a
npetltor so formidable that the IN.
ST. In fragrant violation OF law, paid -
100000 to buy him out Thomas G.
nt had actually succeeded in devel- 81
ng Ia about FIVE years, while the r
st was stolid from monopoly, a III