Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (June 1, 1915)
,rA-'sv . A A: 'ir The Commoner ata JUNE, 1915 if- ?T: J-. The Steel Trust Decision It is well that Mr. George W. Perkins, organ izer of the Harvester trust and director of the steel trust, but speaking in this instance in his well known capacity "as a citizen for a long time and now deeply concerned over the trend of events," has attacked the administration for taking an appeal in the case against the steel triist. It helps to make the issue clear. It is very natural that Mr. Perkins should wish to see the decision of the district court let alone. He is opposed to the competitive system of in dustry. He is the guide and spokesman of those who would repeal the Sherman act and substitute for it the policy of government-regulated mon opoly. And in this decision he sees a long step in that direction; for one thing is certain if combina tions of competitors on so vast a scale as the steel corporation, and possessing such vast power, are ever permitted by the people, the people will prescribe as a condition the most comprehensive and thorough-going system of governmental regulation of industry, including the power to regulate prices. The head of the steel trust, Judge Gary, has very frankly recognized this. In a statement made before a congressional committee on June 2, 1911, he said: "I believe that" is a very important question, and personally I believe that the Sherman act does not meet and will never fully prevent that. I believe we must come to enforced publicity and governmental control." Mr. Young. "You mean governmental control oi! prices?" Mr. Gary. "I do; even as to prices, and, so far as I am concerned, speaking for our com pany, so far as I have the right, I would bo very glad if we knew exactly where we stand, if we could be freed from 'danger, trouble, and crit icism by the public, and if we had some place where we could go, to a reasonable governmental authority, and say to them, 'Here are our facts and figures, here is our property, here our cost of production; now you tell us what we have the right to do and what prices we havo the. right to charge, I know that is a very extreme yiew, and I know that the railroads objected to it for a long time; but whether the mere stand point of, making the most money is concerned or not; whether it is the wise thing, I believe it is the necessary thing, and It seems to me cor porations havo no right to disregard. these pub lic questions and these public interests." Mr. Littleton. "Is it your position that co operation is bound to take the place of compe tition?" Mr. Gary. "It is my position." Mr. Littleton. "And that co-operation there fore requires strict governmental supervision?" Mr. Gary. "That is a very good statement of tho case. I believe that thoroughly." Are those who hail this decision as a victory for conservatism ready for this? Are they ready for governmental supervision and regulation of he entire body of the country's commerce and industries on a scale which would dwarf into insignificance everything else of the kind we havo ever attempted?. Are not the real conservatives in this contro versy those who are trying to make recourse to that remedy unnecessary by preserving the in tegrity of the competitive system? Coming now to what Mr. Perkins has to say about the decision itself and the position of the government, he makes three misstatements which deserve notice. In the first place, he attempts to give the im pression that the issue in this and other similar ases is whether business on a large scale-; "big business" as it has come to be called shall be permitted. This idea has been insidiously cul tivated for some time past by the advocates of monopoly. The country has been flooded with their propoganda. No one should be deceived bv it, however. It is a gross misrepresentation. There is no such issue involved. The govern ment's position on this point was stated in the Harvester caso as follows: "Summing up tho effect of this construction of the act: it sets no iimit to the size which a busi ness may attain by internal expansion by ;r8 JL?0 u?,its wh!ch BuPPlomont each othertho integration of industry. It permits ??ri?,n ?n8,0f comnetltlve units within limits. It prohibits, however, in any manner whatever, n1faC?Vi?!?B m comPetltIve trader or trade units which together would occupy a preponder ant position in any branch of trade. Such a construction on the ono hand will preserve from undue restraint the free action of competition in interstate commerce, which was the purpose of the act, and, on tho other hand, win give full scope to business development by every normal and legitimate means." There is nothing in this view of the law to prevent tho organization of business units large enough to achieve the highest economic efficiency in both domestic and foreign trade. On tho con trary tho right to do so is expressly recognized. Again, Mr. Perkins states that the decision of the district court "exonerates the steel corpora tion under both the Sherman law and the moral law." On the contrary, two of the judges ex pressly found that tho corporation was organ ized for an unlawful purpose, and all found that in the course of its history it had been a per sistent violator of the law in the matter of price fixing. Thus, Judge Woolley. speaking for himself and Judge Hunt, says: " These circumstances indicate that the various combinations were made upon a scale that was huge and in a manner that was wild. Properties were assembled and combined with less regard to their importance as integral parts of an integrated whole than to the advantages expected from the elimination of the competition which theretofore existed between them. In many instances capital stock was issued for amounts vastly in excess of the values of the properties purchased, thereby capitalizing tho anticipated fruits of combination. The control acquired over the branches, of the industry tn which the combination particularly related, measured by the amount of production, extended in some instances from 80 per cent to 95 per cent of the entire output of the country, result ing in the immediate increase of prices in some cases double and in others treble what they were before, yielding large dividends upon greatly inflated capital. The immediate as well as tho normal effect of such combinations was in all instances a complete elmination of competition between tho concerns absorbed, and a cor resnonding restraint of trade." Again he says: "It therefore appears that from the organiza tion of the corporation in 1901 until the Gary dinners were discontinued in January, 1911. the corporation, first by one method and then by a second method and then by a third method, em ployed means to procure the establishment and maintenance of uniform prices for its diversified products, and by these means the steel corpora tion, with its competitors, did combine and con trol prices, and in controlling prices restrained trade." Finally, Mr. Perkins states that the adminis tration whilst by its words encouraging tho ex pansion of foreign trade, is by its acts attempt ing to destroy the only instrumentalities by which that development can be brought about. This suggestion that the country's foreign trade can be adequately developed only through the organization in our domestic trade of cor porate combinations of overwhelming and mon opolistic power, is also being diligently spread by the advocates of monopoly. It has no founda tion in fact. ....,, ii The undisputed facts are that during the six vpars immediately preceding the organization of the steel trust, namely 1895 to 1900, exports from the United States of articles made of steel and iron manufactured in the United States in creased from $32,989,000 to $121,913,548 nearly 400 per cent. For steady and rapid Srowth this period is without parallel in the history of the export trade in iron and steel products subsequent to the formation of the t!Tn'the Harvester case it was conclusively shown that so far from the organization of the trusT being necessary to promote foreign trade in harvesting machines, the facts are that the ate of increase in the Harvester trust's exports of such machines during the five years succeed ing ita formation was slower than in the case of thenrincipal combining companies during the nveyeSrs Preceding, and for the entire period since its formation has been slower than the in crease in exports of other manufactured articles. The Roosevelt Verdict If tho Barnes trial is viewed from the stand point of dollars and cents, ox-Prosldcnt Roosevelt is to be congratulated upon a Verdict which re lieves him from tho paymont of the sum demand ed by Plaintiff Barnes, but tho ex-Prcsldent oc cupied a peculiar position; it was impossiblo for him to be wholly victorious or wholly defeated. The verdict has, it is true, saved him from tho payment of damages but it has judicially fixed upon Barnes the stlgmn of being a boss, and that is almost as hard upon Mr. Roosevelt as it is up on Mr. Barnes, because Mr. Barnes was no moro a boss after he fell out with Mr. Roosevelt than he was before. If tho verdict had been in favor of Barnes it would have benefited tho ex-pres-ldcnt somewhat by giving a certificate of char acter to Barnes and thus relieved Mr. Roosevelt of the odium of having associated with him so long. As It Is, the reader is loft to decide for himself whether the defendant in tho suit gains more than he loses. In ono sense Barnes Is vic tor, for his real purposo was not to obtain money but to give publicity to the Intimate relations which existed between Mr. Roosevelt and the bosses, and in this he has been successful. The friends of the ex-president will not make use of the evidence produced at the trial when they are preparing a eulogy of their hero. .W. J. BRYAN. THE VICTORIES OFPEACE On another page will be found' a speech deliv ered by tho president at Philadelphia, on May 10th, 1915, at ,a first voters meeting, at tended by more than fifteen thousand. It is timely, and should be read and considered by every American citizen. Tho speech abounds in apt phrases; tho president is always felicitous. Two thoughts presented by him need to be spe cially emphasized Just now. Tho first is that courage can be shown by Belt-1 restraint as well as by fighting. He points to the victories of peace, which are "no less re nowned than war," and Haya that the United States must set a special example. "The example of America must be'the example not merely of peace because it will not fight, but of peace because peace is the healing and elevat ing influence of the world and strife is not." That is the growing doctrine It has grown immensely during the last nine months. It would be easy to desceiuMo the level of fighting; "Call him a liar and make it a fight," is not diffi cult, but, as the president suggests "There frf such a thing as a man being too proud to fight." This nation has too much at stake too much at stake for itself and too much at stake for hu manity to be looking for a chance to enter this world-wide war. ' The other thought to which I would, draw the attention of the readers is that embodied in hl appeal to the iforeign-born citizens to think of themselves as Americans and part of the whole country, not as members of a group: "You can not dedicate yourself to America unless you become in every respect and with every purpose of your will thorough Americana, You can not become thorough Americans if you think of yourselves in groups. America does not consist of groups. A man who thinks of himself an belonging to a particular national group In America has not yet become an American, and the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son to live under tho Stars and Stripes." He further emphasizes this idea when he says: "It was but an historical accident no doubt that this great country was called the 'United States'; yet I am very thankful that It has that word 'united' in Its title, and the man who seekg to divide man from man, group from group, in terest from interest, in the United States Is strik ing at its very heart." At this time, when the horrors of war are be ing understood as never before, it is the duty of every American citizen to stand, with the prcs ident and assist him to maintain that neutrality which not only our duty but our opportunity, for only by maintaining neutrality can we per form the task that awaits us when the fever of war has run its course and the people of the belligerent nations return to the paths of peace. W. J. BRYAN. . -. i j,:m M i m M m km'- M 4..W 'i'-JH It VJ 3 .! i X ' t l . fi"" - '- ' -'"M'triifil'iii'frii , A i'i i JbkMiaMiM&l&itoim , 'tiLM'Ua fr-W 4ntiHmj&