4 y TrTj3pF 4WTp
t iivvf-i- Fn'""
t IBFTflT" Tf V "
The Commoner.
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
VOL. 12, NO; 43
Lincoln, Nebraska, November 1, 1912
Whole Number 615
Don't be Fooled By the Panic Scare
Whatever may be the name of the next president, the sun will continue
to shine. But you will get better results from popular government if you
elect a president who is devoted to the welfare of the many rather than to
the special interests of the few. . : ,
-
Mr. Roosevelt's Plan for Legalizing Monopoly
In .a story written by Will Irwin and published
September 20 in the Cleveland Leader (a paper
owned by Dan Hanna, who gave $177,000 to the
Roosevelt primary fund) Mr. Roosevelt's views
on the trust question are stated a little more
concisely than they have been heretofore. Ho
is quoted as "saying":
'itlnd'erstand'jl'm' n.ct for monopoly when wo
'can help it. We intend to restore competition;
we intend to do away with conditions that
make for monopoly. But there are certain
monopolies whioh you can't prevent. I under
stand the steel trust is not an absolute monopoly.
But if it-were, there would be no use of splitting
up the steel trust into three companies, con
trolled by Morgan, Carnegie and Rockefeller.
Would it ameliorate conditions at all? Would
it make the prices lower to tho consumer, the
wages and conditions higher for the worker?
Don't you suppose these three fellows would
agree on prices and methods unofficially? Hero
is one of your examples of free competition. I
saw awhile ago the plan of a competitor of the
steel trust, the hours were longer, the conditions
in, 'every way worse it is one of the concerns
upon which the Survey came down the hardest.
How would it help if we should restore such
competition as that? The Standard Oil com
pany has been officially broken up. The result
is higher prices for the public and just as big
dividends for tho stockholders unionism barred
i no advance for the workers."
Here we ttave his plan for legalizing monopoly.
He does not want monopoly "when wo can help
it." He wants to restore competition, but there
are, he says, "certain monopolies which you can't
prevent." Then he singles out the steel trust
and, while denying that it is an absolute mo
nopoly, declares that EVEN IF IT WERE AN
ABSOLUTE MONOPOLY there would be no use
of splitting It up;' and by inference he says the
same thing of the Standard Oil company. This
. statement contains enough errors of fact and
principles to defeat any presidential candidate,
if the people understand what the statement
means.
In the first place he does not comprehend the
objections to monopoly. Even if it could bo
Bhown that competition in industry would not
make prices lower (although prices would,
without doubt, be lower) and if it could; be
shown that tho wages and conditions of the
worker would ttot; be improved (although wagea
and. .conditions. 'would doubtless be better) still
the destruction of independence in industry
would bo indefensible. Tho greatest objection
to private monopoly is that it robs the Ameri
can citizen of tho stimulus which independence
gives him. It takes hope out of him and that
1 materially lessons his productive capacity and
. his value as a citizen. Mr. Roosevelt seems
entirely oblivious, of tho fact that It would bo
difficult to preaervo political independence under
an industrial despotism.
In tho second place ho cites tho farcical dis
solution of the Standard Oil company as an illus
tration of what would come under a return to
competition. The Standard Oil company was
not dissolved. Tho ownership was not changed.
The monopoly Is juBt as complete now as It over
was and tho higher prices are due to tho fact
that the trusts which went through the so-called
dissolution are now protected by a decision of
the supremo court, sanctioned by tho president.
Such enforcement of the law is a fraud and tho
fact that Roosevelt cites it as an illustration of
what would happen under a return to competi
tion shows that he does not understand tho first
principles of the subject which 'he is discussing.
Then again ho says: "Don't you suppose
those three fellows (Morgan, Carnegio and
Rockefeller) would agreo on prices and methods
unofficially?"
It is astounding that a candidate for the presi
dency would declare tho federal government
powerless to prevent "theso three fellows" from
agreeing on prices and methods. Is our govern
ment so helpless that, while it can prevent three
poor men from conspiring to rob a house, it can
not prevent three rich men from conspiring to
burglarize a nation? Mr. Roosevelt ought not
to say that we CAN NOT prevent them; he ought
to say that wo HAVE NOT prevented them, and
then he ought to explain that we have not in
terfered w'ith the trusts for a very simple reason,
namely, because the trusts have elected our
presidents, and Mr. Roosevelt Is one of the presi
dents elected by the trusts, and no one has
seemed more helpless than he In protecting the
public. All we need In the White House Is a
president under no obligations to the trusts
a president in sympathy with the peoplo and a
senate and house to support him then there
will be no difficulty in preventing those three
fellows or any other fellows from agreeing1 -oil
prices and methods.
One ifaore reference to his words. He seems
to base his opinions as to what would happen
if the steel trust wore broken up upon what ho
saw In one plant which is a competitor of tho
steel trust. Poor, innocent Mr. Roosevelt! Ho
judges what would happen under competition by
what ho sees now. Possibly the poor, struggling
competitor of tho, steel trust which ho observes
.was ' oufforlng from strangulation. Tho steol
trust may havo been selling below cost in tho
competitor's market for tho oxpress purpose of
driving tho competitor out of business that Is
-ono of tho methods that "thoso three fellows"
havo boon using. If Mr. Roosovolt will, in tho
limelight of a presidential campaign, defend tho
steel trust whoso capitalization was moro than
half water, what hope Is thoro of his protecting
the peoplo from tho trusts If ho is- elected?
Mr. Roosevelt's plan, as hero outlined, con
templates tho establishment of a legalized pri
vate monopoly, and, as mere bigness does not
disturb him, ho can have no objection to tho
merging and merging again of theso big Indus
tries until a few ' men control tho industrial
world. Ho has evidently convinced himself that
these gigantic institutions with their billions of
dollars of watered stock can bo effectively regu
lated by a bureau appointed by the president,
provided, of course, that ho is the president.
But he can not be president always; and suppose
he should bo succeeded by a man like Mr. Taft.
He commended Mr. Taft after a much more inti
mate acquaintance with him than the people are
ablo to havo with a presidential candidate. If
he gave us Mr. Taft what may bo forced upon
us when ho is no longer ablo to protect us?
How can any honest, earnest, well-meaning man
believe that it is safe to vest In a president' tho
enormous power which he proposes? How can
, anyono doubt that his plan would compel tho
trusts to enter actively Into politics?
Mr. Perkins is a defendant In suits brought
against two monopolies. Ho is an object les
son. Ho shows us what we may expect if tho
Roosevelt system ever gets into operation. What
chances have tho peoplo to effectively regulato
a private monopoly when tho monopoly can
afford to spend millions of dollars to elect tho
man It wants and thus prevent regulation? Tho
plan which Mr, Roosevelt offers contains the
germ of a system moro oppressive than any land
lord system of the old world.
)'
'J.
The democrats have nominated a splendid lot
ofc candidates for governor in tho soveral states
now elect them.
n
'i
i
I
J
i&L&lfiU'-! -."