The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1937-05-13
Strike
at Trusts

at trusts IOrtn with a letter
urging congress to
revise and tighten the antitrust law.
He said that monopoly was grow
ing in the United States and that
small businesses were being driven
to the wall by the inroads of great
masses of capital.
There is evidence that capital is
massing. We need not look any fur
Their for proof of this than the CUT
fey-Vinson law itself which permits
capital to work together-the only
hindrance being that which is SUBJ
jected somewhat to the influence of
organized labor under the Guffey-
VinSon law. The result is exactly
the same whether the massing Of
capital takes place under private
arrangement or under government
supervision such as is legalized in
the Guffey-Vinson law.
This situation impresses me as
being bit incongruous. It seems
to be circumstance where the
administration is trying to run in
two directions at one and the same
time. 1t is further exaggerated by
the fact that the President lately
has spoken with emphasis about the
rapid increase in retail prices. Yet,
besides raising wages for labor, the
only tangible result that I can see
under the Guffey-Vinson law is high
er prices for all of us to pay.
Surely, monopoly has tendency
always to increase prices. It has
been the chief subject of harrangue
against monopoly and the Attorney
General adverted to this fact in his
recent appeal for legislation to pre-
vent monopoly. But why is it bad
for monopoly, privately arranged, to
force higher prices and good for
monopoly, legalized by congress,
to force higher prices?
President Roosevelt has sent word
around through all government de-
partments to the
No Stock effect that no gov
Gambling eminent worker
may engage in
stock market speculation. He has
told the civil service commission
that "among the matters to be con-
sidered" when passing upon an en-
ployee's qualifications for retention
or advancement, the commission
may consider whether that en-
ployee has engaged in speculation
in securities or commodities.
At first blush, this die. seem to
be a sound order. I have heard
much discussion of the matter, how
ever, that gives rise to other
thoughts about it. ! think there can
be nothing more reprehensible than
for a public official or employee to
use the confidential information
which he obtains officially as the
basis for stock speculation. On the
other hand, is it not questionable
whether a government should try
to tell any of its employees that
they cannot invest their surplus
earnings in securities as a means
of increasing their income? The
President said that "bona fide in
vestments" are all right but the
question for which I have not been
able to find an answer is chow can
it be determined whether the pur-
chase of a few shares of stock is
speculation or bona fide invest
ment?"
That brings up of necessity the
difficulties of enforcement It also
brings to the forefront a real dam
ger. That danger is not as remote
as it seems. / refer to the use of
power in the hands of the Chief Ex-
ecutive to take away individual lib
erty of action.
If, for example, our government
has reached the point where it can
say to it's workers that they may
not buy shares of stock, what rea-
son is there to prevent the same
government from saying to its work
ers that they may not buy a home.
That home may be in a new SUBJ
division or it may be a farm. If it
happens that real estate prices are
zooming upward at the particular
time and the buyer of that home
or farm sees the chance for a
handsome profit and sells, he is
specializing.
Although opponents may differ
greatly concerning the moral ques-
tons involved in specializing, / know
of very few people in the United
States who will not indulge in spec
ulation in order to increase their
income wherever it is possible and
can be done honestly.
g Western Newspaper Union.