The Grangeville globe. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho) 1907-1922, 1914-03-12

pleasure. 1t was not my purpose to
misrepresent you and l had not sup
posed until l received your letter that
had done so. l do not deny at all
the efficacy of that philosophy which
permits men to practice one thing dur
ing the greater portion of their lives
and after gathering all the fruits that
such practice may bring-repent. But
1 have always believed that restitution
ought to be to some extent a character
istic or an accompaniment of these
death bed repentances.
l did not undertake to state the at
titude Of the third party on the ques-
tion of monopoly. In the first place,
do not know its exact attitude. /
had heard upon what seemed to be
good authority that an accident hap
pened to one plank of its monopoly
platform between the time the platform
left the convention hall and the time
1t reached the telegraph office. l was
not sure, therefore, in the face of this
most unexpected accident that the
platform was full and complete. upon
this subject. Secondly. / felt that the
voters of the third party were not in
favor of monopoly. l therefore chose
to take its most active and prominent
leaders, Mr. Beveridge and yourself, and
judge somewhat of the situation by your
views
But you say you are not in favor of
monopoly 1 feel bound to accept your
statement as to your present state of
mind but as you insist that the charge
was false and made maliciously 1 beg
to state some of the reasons which
seem to have led to what you regard
as an erroneous conclusion. Appear
ances are sometimes deceiving but not
having the privilege of closer person
al acquaintance 1 was obliged to state
my views from what appeared to an OBJ
server
In the first place, your letter answers
itself very largely. Immediately after
denying that you believe in monopoly
you enter upon a most vigorous de-
fense of one of the most unconscion-
able and shameless monopolies we have
ever had in this country-the harvester
me simply differ as to what consti-
tutes a monopoly. This combination.
which as l understand you organized
and which was intended to and did suf-
ficiently control this industry and DOM
mate it, and out of which you took, as
l am informed, between five and seven
millions of dollars was monopoly and
intended to be a monopoly. If 1 am mis-
taken about the amount which you took
out you will please advise me and I
will correct the figures. But If you did
take out that amount, who paid it-ul-
timately the farmers of this country.
And how were you able to make them
pay you between five and seven mil
lion dollars for what you did-simply
through the power of a cruel and bru-
tai monopoly. A scheme or plan by
which one man can impose upon
great multitude of people of this coun-
try the burden of a great fortune is a
monopoly. You do not think so. Well
that is quite natural for you got the
five millions But If you had been one
of those who were compelled to pay it
do you not think that your altruistic
mind would have been able to grasp
the other side of this question?
There was another characteristic of
this combination which indicated that it
had monopolistic tendencies to say the
least-the inhuman way in which it
worked and treated it's employees. The
perfectly repulsive scenes which those
who visited its works were permitted
to witness would cause one to wonder
most powerful director deposited his al
truistic impulses and his unspeakable
emotions for humanity in general when
he visited his plant. The State Fac
tory Investigating committee of New
York Investigated the condition of the
employees in this plant and 1 have
their report before me. This investi-
cation shows that the women received
only five and seven dollars per week.
The girls did their work by piece work
and had to work over time in order to
gether The custom of working women
at night was a permanent custom, One
woman who had several children testi-