VWjww "
The Commoner;
.
Vol. a, No. 47.
M".
tho question ofa bank lssuo plainly before tho
country. .
The president thinks that "some additional leg
islation is desirable" and we can obtain an idea
of tho magnitude of tho word "some" when wo
read tho next sentence and And that a "more out
line of any plan sufficiently comprehensive to
meet these requirements would transgress the ap
propriate limits of this communication."
He advises against a reduction of the tariff,
and yet ho could bring an elaborate discussion of
the subject "within the appropriate limits of this
communication," but space forbids an, elaboration
of tho currency scheme which ho indorses. Ample
space for tariff, but no space for tho statement
of a definite financial plank. Why? Those who aro
at all conversant with the history of financial leg
islation can easily answer the question. Because
the public is never consulted in advance about
financial legislation however important.
Backed by a blanket indorsement from the ad
ministration tho financiers may now proceed to
force through congress any measure which they de
sire, and which they think they can compel the
-people to submit to.
Owing to the president's speeches on the trust
' question that part of the message will probably
be considered the most import
Trust Question ant by the public generally.
Is Handled With That portion of the message is
Soft Gloves given in full in order that the
readers of The Commoner may
see how cautiously and conservatively the presi
dent feels his way on that subject. More space
is given to the defense of those who have won
great fortunes in the industrial development of
the country than to the condemnation of those
who have accumulated money by means of gov
ernment favoritism "or in violation of the rights
of others. As no one is attempting to interfere
with honestly acquired wealth the president need
not have wasted time in praise and justification
of the holders of such wealth. He says that the
trust "evils are the outgrowth, not of misery or
decadence, but of prosperity of the progress of
our gigantic industrial development. This indus
trial development," he adds, "must not be checked, '
but side by side with .it should go such progres
sive regulation as "will diminish the evils."
Again in speaking of the caution to be observed
he sayg: "In curbing and regulating the com
binations of capital which are or
Makes Plea , may become Injurious to the
For public we must be careful not to
"Qood Trusts" stop the great enterprises which
have legitimately -reduced the
cost of production, not to abandon the place which
our country has won in the leadership of the in
ternational industrial world, not to strike down
wealth with the result of closing factories and
mines, or turning the wage-worker idle in the
streets and leaving the farmer without a market
for what ho grows."
After scattering numerous "Keep off the good
trusts" signs along the narrow anti-trust road
which he Is following, he reaches the conclusion
that "monopolies, unjust discriminations, which
prevent or cripple competition, fraudulent over
capitalization, and other evils in trust organiza
tions and practices which injuriously affect in
terstate trade can bo prevented under the power
of congress to 'regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the several states' through reg
ulations and requirements operating directly upon
such commerce, the instrumentalities thereof, and
those engaged therein." This is an indictment of
the republican pai t,. for its failure to legislate for
the past six years.
It is a plain admission that the democrats
were right when, two years ago, they insisted that
an amendment to the constitu
A Plain tion was not necessary to the
Admission eriSctment of efficient anti-trust
Made legislation. It is also a confes
sion that tho constitutional
amendment which ho spoke of in his speeches last
summer is not absolutely essential to progress in
tho direction of abolishing private monopolies. It
will be remembered that tho democrats after op
posing the constitutional amendment proposed by
tho republicans in 1900 insisted on immediate leg
islation and helped tho republicans to pass a bill
which, while not sufficiently drastic, was a step
in the right direction. It will also be remembered
that this bill died in the senate after the election
of 1900, and was not even passed through the
house at the first session of the present congress.
For two years the republican speakers have hid
den behind this attempt at a constitutional amend-.
ment, and have charged the democrats with ob
structing anti-trust legislation. Now the presi
dent announces an opinion in perfect harmony
with tho democratic contention, and the democrats
will be more than willing to join in an effort to
secure legislation within the scope of the constitu
tion. Should the supreme court nullify such leg
islation by judicial construction the president will
find the democrats willingvto join with him in
urging a constitutional amendment which' will give
congress plenary power without depriving the
states of the power which they now have.
The significant and disappointing feature of
this part of the message is that, except a brief
reference to publicity, he makes
Significant no definite suggestion; he points
and out no specific method; he out-
Disappointing lines no positive plan. He leaves
the subject just where his pro
decessors have left it His condemnation of the
trusts is no more emphatic than Mr. Cleveland's,
and yet Mr. Cleveland's administration passed
without any serious attempt to protect the people.
The president's hatred of the trusts, to judge from
his language, is no more intense than the hatred
expressed by President McKinley in his messages,
and yet President McKinley allowed more than,
f our years to pass without anyv active effort' to
interfere with the operations of the trusts.. s Jf
President Roosevelt is going to do anything'1 on
the trust question it time to start. His enthus
iastic supporters have pointed to his speeches as
evidence that he was going to strike private mo
nopolies in a vital part, but he must know that
such an evil cannot be killed by words alone.
If he knows of a plan that will, in his judgment,
be effective he owes it to congress to present it.
If he does not know of any plan, it is hardly fair
for him to expect members of congress to be
better informed than himself.
He gives no rallying cry to the people, and
says nothing that will alarm the trusts. He makes
no -reference to the criminal sec
Saijs Nothing to tion of the Sherman law, a sec
Alarin tion which he neglects to en-
The Trusts foice.
Ho grossly exaggerates the
work of the department of justice, when he 'says
that it has done "very much in securing the en
forcement of the anti-trust law." It could
not well have done less. Ho suggests
that it could have done "more" if a special ap
propriation were made for the purpose. By all
means, let the spdal appropriation be made, and
while it is b9ing made let the courts be instructed
to give Immediate attention to suits brought by
the government for the violation of tho anti-trust
law. Certainly nn offence by a corporation against
an entire country should be given preference over
suits of minor importance,
The Commoner has already pointed out a plan
the. Kansas City platform plan for destroying
every private monopoly. It has
No Real Blow given numerous reasons in de
Struch at fense of this plan, and it stands
Private Monopoly ready to commend any effort
which Mr, Roosevelt or a repub
lican congress will make toward the destruction'
of tho trusts, but the editor of The Commoner can
not see in tho president's message any evidence
that he intends to strike a real blow at tho prln-
z
His Concern
Only
For the Trusts
ciples of private monopoly. On 'the contrary, the
message furnishes proof that tho president either
really does not deslro to do more than restrain the
trusts from "extreme abuses, or, that, if he beliovc3
all private monopolies bad, he is entirely at sea
in regard to a remedy. His message, taken as a
whole, would indicate that ho regards private
monopolies as a necessary part of our industrial
development; that he sees no real harm. in the
control of an industry by one corporation, but that
ho thinks a monopoly may develop offensive traits
and that attention ought to be given to these of
fensive traits. His solicitude for the managers -of
great enterprises; his fear lest legitimate busi
ness may be Interfered with; his repeatod cautions
against hasty action; his elaboration of the diffi
culties in the way of wise action all these indi
cate that he is more concerned lest the people
may hurt the trusts than he is lest the trusta
may hurt the people.
His attitude recalls the story of the mother
who, in order .to impress upon her son tho suffer
ings of the Christian martyrj.
called his attention to a picture
in which the Christians were be
ing devoured by lions in the
arena. The-boy looked at the
scene for a while and then, his face lighting up as
he thought he caught the lesson taught by the
picture, he said to his mother, pointing to ono
lonesome, beast: "There is one poor little Hon
that isn't getting a bit"
Tho president seems more concerned lest some
of the lions may not get their share than he is
to prevent any of the lions from tasting human
blood.
In his .treatment of the labor question the
president expresses himself strongly on the side
of the wage-earner, and yet he is unfortunate in
his attempt to identify the labor organizations
with capitalistic combines, lie enters into' an
elaborate argument to show that there is no differ
ence between a combination of capital and a com
bination of labor, and he thus injures labor.
In his justification of the labor organization he in- "
eludes a justification of the capitalistic organiza
tion, just as in his suggestion that the capitalistic
combine may do wrong he includes the labor or
ganization. There is a wide distinction between the pur
pose, the operation and the effect of the capital
istic combine on tho ono side and
the labor organization on the
other. The former gives em
phasis to what are cailed prop-
erty rights, the latter to what
are described as human rights; the former deals
with inanimate coin, the latter wilh living souls.
In the former the magnate at the head of tho
trusts commands cold, hard cash; the labor
leader appeals to the conscience and intelligence
of the members of the order. The capitalist can do
what he pleases' with his money; the members of
a labor organisation can do what they please with
their officers. The industrial monopoly attempts
to victimize society for an enormous pecuniary
reward, the members of the labor organization are
attempting to secure wages, hours and conditions
that have the approval of tho public.
If the president will compare the influence of
the two organizations upon society and note the
difference between the salaries paid to trust mag
nates and the salaries paid to officers of labor or
ganizations, he will not class the two organizations
together as he oes in his message. He fails to
advocate arbitration or a law abolishing govern
ment by injunction, both of which laboring men
desire.
After pointing out those parts of the message
which seem weak wb.on viewed from a democratic
standpoint it is gratifying to be
able ux indorse the presidents
failure to co'nimend the ship sub
sidy bill, (Possibly the presi
dent" would have spoken out
against the ship subsidy Instead of ignoring the
Labor Unions
and Capitalistic
Combines
lie is Silen
' on the
Ship Subsidy
t
-O
r
4 '
j
13&& j'&wi: ? rvr rrfflmtmiiiiiwifiiTir